Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

[Me Myself]

Because the woman is killing another human being when she knew full well that she will be risking his creation by sex. The choice was made and know she wants to kill to take it back. (because allegedly, there was some agreement upon the risks of creating life since there was sex, so there )

 

[Alceste]

This doesn't matter to the point being made.
When a woman has sex with a man she is aware she is the one who gets pregnant.
She is aware that is her responsibility. She made her choice at the moment.

That simply isn't true. At the moment, she is well aware that certain options remain open to her.

 

[Koldo]

Why should the sky be blue? Why should our nostrils be so close together? Why should the sea be salty? Abortion IS an option, whether it's legal or not, and for the rest of time, just as from the beginning of time, some proportion of women will choose it. You are arguing that a man should have full, legal use of all the birth control options that exist for him, but the woman should have one option made more difficult and unsafe to use. Why? Justify this please. Should we make condoms illegal while we're at it, so that men have to buy home made condoms on the black market?

I have already explained.
If the moment a man has sex with a woman it binds him to the responsibility of taking care of a child ( if the woman got pregnant ) because he made the choice to have sex with her, then the same applies to a woman. She must also be bound to the responsibility of taking care of a child ( if she got pregnant ) because she made the choice to have sex with him.

Using this argument, every birth control method used before or during the sex is permitted. Methods used after aren't.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This doesn't matter to the point being made.
When a woman has sex with a man she is aware she is the one who gets pregnant.
She is aware that is her responsibility. She made her choice at the moment.

And she has a few choices after sex.

There are no "shoulds" in this argument unless one considers it moral to limit a woman's choice with what she can do with her body. Old wives tales used to abound for decades with jumping up and down after sex or using a vinegar and water douche for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy (they don't work).

The reason is that because the sperm and the egg, whether joined or not to form a zygote/blastocyst is all in the woman's body, and therefore is in her realm of choice to do something about it.

 

[McBell]

I have repeated this several times already: The fetus is not the woman's body.

And it is still just as irrelevant a strawman as the first time you stated it...

What i am saying is that if you hold the man responsible for the child ( which means he has to financially support him/her ) because he had sex with a woman, then you must hold the woman equally responsible. She had the very same choice. And therefore, if she had this choice, she doesn't need to ever make an abortion.

Yet you have not in the least bit shown why the woman's choices should stop as soon as the mans choices are depleted.

They both agreed to be held responsible at the moment they made that choice. And what you propose is that for some arbitrary reason the woman must not be held to the same standard. She is allowed to make another choice even though the first choice is more than sufficient to make the man responsible for the child.

:biglaugh:
So carrying a fetus to term is "arbitrary"?

I agree, it is completely unfair that the the man is able to just run off and have absolutely nothing to do with the child other than paying child support while the mother has the "arbitrary" responsibility of raising the child.

Cause we all know just how much more responsibility there is in paying child support than there is in actually raising a child.

What?

You are claiming that abortion is some sort of complete freement of responsibility.
You have thus far failed to support your claim.

This certainly what your argument used against the OP entails.

No, my argument is that the man should be responsible for his actions/choices.

Furthermore, my argument is that merely jumping up and down screaming "it's not fair" is not a valid argument.
Especially if you flat out refuse to reveal your basis for comparison.

My argument is that it is the womans body, not the mans, so the woman gets to choose.

 

[Koldo]

thanks koldo,
so YOU are not talking about an embryo

This is a matter of linguistics.

 

[waitasec]

Koldo?

How an embryo would not hold to that description?

a child is one who being cared for, under the best of circumstances.
an embryo is left to it's own devices to survive all the developmental stages.

you realize that miscarriages occur because the women's body sees the embryo as a threat to the body and it does what it does to get rid of it.

so why would choice make a difference?

 

[Me Myself]

A baby is less inteligent than a dog on practically anything.

Yet we do not see the baby as if s/he was not a human being.

Is it form that is supposed to be that important? is it time to be that important for us to recognise it as a human being?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have already explained.
If the moment a man has sex with a woman it binds him to the responsibility of taking care of a child ( if the woman got pregnant ) because he made the choice to have sex with her, then the same applies to a woman. She must also be bound to the responsibility of taking care of a child ( if she got pregnant ) because she made the choice to have sex with him.

Using this argument, every birth control method used before or during the sex is permitted. Methods used after aren't.

He is not required to care for the fetus before birth. He can't. It's in her body. It's HER responsibility to eat the right foods, to refrain from alcohol and recreational drugs and some prescription drugs. It's HER responsibility to maintain a healthy body weight gain in order to support the growing fetus if she chooses to keep it.

The man has NOTHING to do with the fetus after conception, and therefore is not his responsibility. It's her realm and hers alone while in utero.

As Willamena explained too, she also has a responsibility to HERSELF and her own health. The fetus is using her body to grow. It isn't some independent life force happily growing all by itself....the woman's body is being used. Period. If a woman chooses to be a host for the fetus' gestation, that's her choice. But because it's her body that is being used to gestate a fetus.....and it takes an enormous toll on a woman's body to gestate a fetus.....it is entirely in her best interest to decide on whether or not she wants to take the enormous toll for 9 months.

 

[waitasec]

This is a matter of linguistics.

well i disagree because an embryo =/= a child
using the term a child implies "wanted" that isn't always the case with an embryo

 

[Koldo]

No, koldo, once again: your argument can not stand unless you are able to explain why ANY birth control option for EITHER responsible party should be made more difficult and dangerous to obtain. That the man has no more options after he knocks a woman up is just a fact. That the woman still has options is just a fact. How is that an argument for eliminating certain choices?

I know you're trying, but there's no logic in what you're saying.

"What i am saying is that if you hold the man responsible for the child ( which means he has to financially support him/her ) because he had sex with a woman, then you must hold the woman equally responsible. She had the very same choice. And therefore, if she had this choice, she doesn't need to ever make an abortion.

They both agreed to be held responsible at the moment they made that choice. And what you propose is that for some arbitrary reason the woman must not be held to the same standard. She is allowed to make another choice even though the first choice is more than sufficient to make the man responsible for the child."

 

[Alceste]

Because the woman is killing another human being when she knew full well that she will be risking his creation by sex. The choice was made and know she wants to kill to take it back. (because allegedly, there was some agreement upon the risks of creating life since there was sex, so there )

Not everyone agrees that a fetus is a "human being" right from the moment of fertilization. Fetal development is a long and fascinating process. There are many stages along the way. Calling it a "human being" or a "person" or an "individual" is just semantics. Using such words to describe an embryo won't change the fact that they lack sentience, sapience, sensation and viability until very late in the game. Unlike the mother, they are utterly unable to suffer in any way.

Given that "human being" is just a word you've arbitrarily chosen to describe a zygote, blastoma, blastocyst, embryo and fetus (these are all different developmental stages, fyi), it doesn't make a very good rationale for making access to abortion more difficult and dangerous.

 

[McBell]

This doesn't matter to the point being made.
When a woman has sex with a man she is aware she is the one who gets pregnant.
She is aware that is her responsibility. She made her choice at the moment.

That is correct.
However, her choices do not stop there.

Since it is the womans body the resulting pregnancy is reliant on, the woman gets a few more choices.

The second that it is the mans body the pregnancy is reliant on, then the man will get a few more choices.

Now I understand that there are some who want to whine and complain about how paying child support is so much more a bigger responsibility than actually raising a child...

 

[Koldo]

That simply isn't true. At the moment, she is well aware that certain options remain open to her.

Why should these options remain open to her?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why should these options remain open to her?

Because her body is being utilized.

 

[McBell]

Using this argument, every birth control method used before or during the sex is permitted. Methods used after aren't.

Based on what?
I mean other than the idea that it is "unfair" to the man that his choices stop at pregnancy?

 

[Koldo]

And she has a few choices after sex.

There are no "shoulds" in this argument unless one considers it moral to limit a woman's choice with what she can do with her body. Old wives tales used to abound for decades with jumping up and down after sex or using a vinegar and water douche for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy (they don't work).

The reason is that because the sperm and the egg, whether joined or not to form a zygote/blastocyst is all in the woman's body, and therefore is in her realm of choice to do something about it.

If the choice she made during sex binds her, why would anyone consider her realm of choice to do something else about it even if the pregnancy happens in her body?

 

[Me Myself]

Not everyone agrees that a fetus is a "human being" right from the moment of fertilization. Fetal development is a long and fascinating process. There are many stages along the way. Calling it a "human being" or a "person" or an "individual" is just semantics. Using such words to describe an embryo won't change the fact that they lack sentience, sapience, sensation and viability until very late in the game. Unlike the mother, they are utterly unable to suffer in any way.

Is it okay to kill someone as long as the person wont suffer?

If it is a matter of development a baby is not fully developed either and a human baby has less inteligence than a lot of animals when just born so how can we say we base the difference on development or inteligence?

Value for the human life should not be reduced to a mere semantics game.

Is it truly okay to kill another human being, not even giving him the chance to live fully, on the argument that it will be painless?

 

[waitasec]

A baby is less inteligent than a dog on practically anything.

Yet we do not see the baby as if s/he was not a human being.

Is it form that is supposed to be that important? is it time to be that important for us to recognise it as a human being?

an embryo is not a baby unless it is wanted.
as far as i am concerned, when science can prove when an embryo is sentient that should be the guide line...however there will be cases when that guide line cannot be met...
a girl in south america just died because she was pregnant and she couldn't take chemo as it would harm the embryo...
so where do we draw the line? how about when someone can make their own choices in regards to their own bodies....since the body makes those choices anyway when it comes to miscarriages.

form and development is everything, at least to me it is, when one is considering an abortion.

 

[Alceste]

Why should these options remain open to her?

It isn't a question of should or shouldn't. It's a biological fact. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she can do something about it, even if men like yourself do everything in their power to make it more difficult and dangerous for her.