But you said you were okay with abortion...

[MysticSang'ha]

The equality comes from both men and women having the "right" to walk away after the baby is born. Pregnancy and childbirth are not to be equated with raising a baby.

So, it's completely illogical to say "If a woman can abort a baby, then the man can walk away from fatherhood."

It's not the same, it never will be the same, and it's ridiculous to argue that they can even BE the same.

If the man has every right to walk away from fatherhood, then the women has every right to drop the baby off at an orphanage. And then what? Does the orphanage have every right to drop the kids off at the factory if/when they children become too unruly or a burden?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The equality comes from both men and women having the "right" to walk away after the baby is born. Pregnancy and childbirth are not to be equated with raising a baby.

So, it's completely illogical to say "If a woman can abort a baby, then the man can walk away from fatherhood."

It's not the same, it never will be the same, and it's ridiculous to argue that they can even BE the same.

If the man has every right to walk away from fatherhood, then the women has every right to drop the baby off at an orphanage. And then what? Does the orphanage have every right to drop the kids off at the factory if/when they children become too unruly or a burden?

Babies all the way down? I'm in.

 

[Me Myself]

That's exactly it. The child will be the one to suffer the most. A woman may have broken her promise to abort, but the child has done nothing wrong.

Yet the woman is given the choice to not take any responsibility for it, in a way that even KILLS this child that has done nothing wrong.

The mother gave raw material, too--that's what made the baby.

[youtube]zHJBmFzliMU[/youtube]
egg cell and sperm cell fertilization - YouTube

Indeed. whats your point?

Look, it's very simple. He made a decision. That decision has consequences. No one else should be responsible for his poor decision-making.

Do I need to spell it out? There is no guarantee, even if the women says "I'll get an abortion", that a child will not result from the decision to have sex, because you cannot force the woman to have an abortion and it is not unreasonable to suspect that she might change her mind. If a man makes that poor judgement call, to believe that his method of birth control (relying upon a woman to have an abortion) is fail-proof, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be responsible for his poor decision making.

It's a two way street, at least until those virgin births become more popular.

Oh it should be a two way street, but if the woman can make the choice then the man should be able to make the choice too. The woman can kill the child before s/he even born. There was no guarantee to the woman that she would not be pregnant and it is not unreasonable to expect that it may happen, yet she is given full right to kill the child who had nothing to do with her poor judgement. The man is not even allowed to walk away when the woman can straight forward kill the child? nonsense.

If the woman has the choice the woman should have the choice too.

 

[Me Myself]

If the man has every right to walk away from fatherhood, then the women has every right to drop the baby off at an orphanage.

Least she didn't kill the baby. That is more than what can be expected for a lot of women.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh it should be a two way street, but if the woman can make the choice then the man should be able to make the choice too. The woman can kill the child before s/he even born. There was no guarantee to the woman that she would not be pregnant and it is not unreasonable to expect that it may happen, yet she is given full right to kill the child who had nothing to do with her poor judgement. The man is not even allowed to walk away when the woman can straight forward kill the child? nonsense.

You're letting your subjective opinion interfere with your judgement. Just because you feel that the fetus is a child doesn't mean it actually is one.

If you want to use your views as the basis to limit the freedom of others, then you need to show that they're valid.

And in any case, both people are treated equally when the woman has the right to choose: both the man and the woman have the right to security and control of their own bodies; the rights granted to both are the same, even if the biology isn't.

 

[ChristineES]

Yet the woman is given the choice to not take any responsibility for it, in a way that even KILLS this child that has done nothing wrong.

I am pro-life and I was pro-life even before I found any religion.

The law does say that abortion is legal so I really have no say in what women do, however (in my country, anyway). This is legality vs. morality, I suppose and really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The discussion is about a baby once it's born and who is responsible for taking care of the baby both financially and emotionally when a woman decides not to have an abortion (Edit for the last sentence)

 

[Me Myself]

You're letting your subjective opinion interfere with your judgement. Just because you feel that the fetus is a child doesn't mean it actually is one.

If you want to use your views as the basis to limit the freedom of others, then you need to show that they're valid.

And in any case, both people are treated equally when the woman has the right to choose: both the man and the woman have the right to security and control of their own bodies; the rights granted to both are the same, even if the biology isn't.

But the right to choose is not the same in this scenario, so there is a distinction of rights there, one that is significant.

A child is a human being that has not reached puberty. Hence, Fetus: child.

 

[Me Myself]

I am pro-life and I was pro-life even before I found any religion.

The law does say that abortion is legal so I really have no say in what women do, however (in my country, anyway). This is legality vs. morality, I suppose and really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The discussion is about a baby once it's born and who is responsible for taking care of the baby both financially and emotionally.

Morality and legality have always been intertwined . Do you support that women have the right to kill their babies before they are born? if you were to vote for the legality of it, would you vote in favor or against choice?

 

[ChristineES]

Morality and legality have always been intertwined . Do you support that women have the right to kill their babies before they are born? if you were to vote for the legality of it, would you vote in favor or against choice?

This isn't an abortion discussion although abortion is mentioned. I usually stay out of abortion discussions because I get emotionally charged with them-- a little too emotionally charged. I am pro-life and I don't believe in abortion as a contraception method.
I don't want to argue the whether abortion should be legal or not. As for now, it is legal and that is how my answers will go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the right to choose is not the same in this scenario, so there is a distinction of rights there, one that is significant.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm pointing out that your false equivocation is, well, false.

Effectively, you're arguing that the man abandoning his child is not as bad as "killing" the child in abortion in order to support the idea that the man should be allowed to abandon his child. What I'm pointing out is that until you establish that the fetus is a child, the fundamental premise of your argument is just plain wrong.

It's wrong on several levels, but for the time being I'm focusing on one: until you establish that the fetus is in fact a child, you cannot establish that abandoning the child is worse than aborting the fetus.

A child is a human being that has not reached puberty. Hence, Fetus: child.

Only if a fetus is a human being.

While I realize that dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive, you cited the Oxford English Dictionary as some sort of authority for the definition of the word "child". Now... do you remember the quote I gave from it that defined "human being"? If not, I can dig it up again.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Least she didn't kill the baby. That is more than what can be expected for a lot of women.

You never answered my question on how women who induce miscarriages, stick a coat hanger up inside them, have their boyfriends punch/kick them in the stomachs, jump down a flight of stairs, etc. should be treated if abortion were legally under the definition of murder.

Should women who terminate pregnancies be tried for murder? Jailed? Executed? In your ideal world, what should the courts do if a woman were found guilty of intentionally terminating a pregnancy?

 

[Willamena]

Indeed. whats your point?

My point is, what's yours.

The man makes the baby as much the woman does.

 

[Falvlun]

Lifes a gamble sometimes, you can't go and sue the Casino once she takes all your money. Well you could try but it would be silly.

Precisely. And it is especially silly to cry about it when you were the one who decided to gamble at the casino in the first place.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm pointing out that your false equivocation is, well, false.

Effectively, you're arguing that the man abandoning his child is not as bad as "killing" the child in abortion in order to support the idea that the man should be allowed to abandon his child. What I'm pointing out is that until you establish that the fetus is a child, the fundamental premise of your argument is just plain wrong.

It's wrong on several levels, but for the time being I'm focusing on one: until you establish that the fetus is in fact a child, you cannot establish that abandoning the child is worse than aborting the fetus.


Only if a fetus is a human being.

While I realize that dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive, you cited the Oxford English Dictionary as some sort of authority for the definition of the word "child". Now... do you remember the quote I gave from it that defined "human being"? If not, I can dig it up again.

human being Pronunciation: /hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
Translate human being into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

So if he is a Homo Sapiens child (in other words, if he is a homo sapiens below the age of puberty) it is considered a human being.

You never answered my question on how women who induce miscarriages, stick a coat hanger up inside them, have their boyfriends punch/kick them in the stomachs, jump down a flight of stairs, etc. should be treated if abortion were legally under the definition of murder.

Should women who terminate pregnancies be tried for murder? Jailed? Executed? In your ideal world, what should the courts do if a woman were found guilty of intentionally terminating a pregnancy?

Abortion in Ecuador
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abortion in Ecuador is currently illegal except in case of the threat to life or health of the woman, or the result of the rape of a woman who is mentally handicapped or insane. The punishment for a woman who has an abortion is 1 to 5 years in prison and the punishment for a doctor or other person who performs the procedure is 2 to 5 years

Doesnt sound bad for me.

My point is, what's yours.

The man makes the baby as much the woman does.

I told you the man only gave raw material, and the woman MADE the baby. You answered by saying that the woman gave raw material too... well, that is not at all contradicting the fact that the woman has spent 9 months working some of her raw material and some of mans raw material to create the baby.

So the man only gave raw material, the baby was made by the woman.

Precisely. And it is especially silly to cry about it when you were the one who decided to gamble at the casino in the first place.

Its not about crying, its about justice. I am talking about a law I wouldn't even use myself, but from the perspective of choice and to eliminate sexism, it makes no sense that the woman has the choice to give up all her mother responsibilities while the man doesn't.

Plain sexism.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Abortion in Ecuador
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abortion in Ecuador is currently illegal except in case of the threat to life or health of the woman, or the result of the rape of a woman who is mentally handicapped or insane. The punishment for a woman who has an abortion is 1 to 5 years in prison and the punishment for a doctor or other person who performs the procedure is 2 to 5 years

Doesnt sound bad for me.

It's horrific. What happens with a pregnancy where the woman is deemed negligent with her health care? Doesn't take pre-natal vitamins and the lack of vitamins caused spina bifida? Is she tried for negligence that resulted in the injury?

And abortion is illegal for any rape case unless the woman is mentally handicapped or insane....so underage girls who are raped are forced to go through a pregnancy?

What I find telling is that someone can be so dismissive about jailing a woman and locking her up for a perceived injustice like terminating a pregnancy, but thinks it appalling to "force a man" to pay child support if he wanted to be able to walk away.

Wow.

 

[Me Myself]

What happens with a pregnancy where the woman is deemed negligent with her health care? Doesn't take pre-natal vitamins and the lack of vitamins caused spina bifida? Is she tried for negligence that resulted in the injury?

Dont thinks so, but no idea.

And abortion is illegal for any rape case unless the woman is mentally handicapped or insane....so underage girls who are raped are forced to go through a pregnancy?

Underage would mean below 14 here, and I guess I doubt there would be an exception, unless we are talking of the already mentioned ones where she was for example at health risk to deliver because of her age.

What I find telling is that someone can be so dismissive about jailing a woman and locking her up for a perceived injustice like terminating a pregnancy, but thinks it appalling to "force a man" to pay child support if he wanted to be able to walk away.

Wow.

I wouldnt support this in Ecuador given that abortion is not an option here.

The way I see it, both men and women should be responsible. Women should carry to term and men pay for the child if the woman chooses to raise her/him . If the woman cant take care of the baby, role inversing makes perfect sense too (man taking care of the baby and women paying support)

Now, in a country/place were babies are magically not people until the go out of their mothers, I would say it would make no sense to give the mother a right to renounce her responsibilities without giving the same to the man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

human being Pronunciation: /hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
Translate human being into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

So if he is a Homo Sapiens child (in other words, if he is a homo sapiens below the age of puberty) it is considered a human being.

Do you really think that a fetus is "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance"?

 

[Me Myself]

Do you really think that a fetus is "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance"?

Do you think a newborn baby is?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think a newborn baby is?

No, I don't. This is why I think your definitions are incomplete (or at least imprecise) and a poor basis for an argument.

Like I said earlier, I consider dictionaries descriptive, not proscriptive. However, you seem to consider the Oxford English Dictionary some sort of authority. I have no idea why you would do this, but consistency demands that if you're continue to hang onto that definition of "child" out of some idea that the OED is authoritative, you must also accept that definition of "human being".

Personally, I'm happy to set both definitions aside and talk about things as they actually are. You're free to do this as well, but this would mean conceding a loss on this argument of yours.

 

[Willamena]

I told you the man only gave raw material, and the woman MADE the baby. You answered by saying that the woman gave raw material too... well, that is not at all contradicting the fact that the woman has spent 9 months working some of her raw material and some of mans raw material to create the baby.

So the man only gave raw material, the baby was made by the woman.

You're obviously confused. The woman only gave raw material, too. The contribution of two raw materials makes a baby.