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

[McBell]

Why doesn't her choices stop there?

Because she has the option to abort the pregnancy.

Why is the man bound to the moment he had sex, but the woman not?

Because the pregnancy is requiring her body to carry the fetus to term, not the mans.

Why are you using a double standard?

There is no double standard.
Like I have already said, the second it is the MANs body that is required to carry the fetus to term, then the man gets to have the extra choices.

the only way it would be the double standard you want it to be is if when the mans body is the one required to carry the fetus to term that he is not allowed to abort.
Now since that is NOT the case, there is no double standard.

Nice try though.

If it binds the man, it must bind the woman.

no, it does not.
and it matters not how many times or how loudly you repeat it, it just is not true.

 

[Koldo]

Even if....?

I take it what a woman decides to do with her body is considered unimportant or even reprehensible under certain circumstances?

Let me ask a question here....what is so wrong with a woman having complete autonomy?

Nothing wrong.
At the moment she had sex with a man she willingly decided to bear a particular kind of responsibility. This is merely facing the consequences of your own actions.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Misoginy? They are human.

Total human autonomy for everyone means no laws.

Why would we want to disolve all law? Or are you proposing that women have some sort of moral perfection so that absolute autonomy would affect them differently than men on the moral scale?

I asked for what is wrong with a woman's complete bodily autonomy, and you equated that perspective with murder, larceny, etc.

The level of distrust of a woman making choices with what happens with her body and her body alone is what constitutes misogyny.

Again, I'm speechless.

 

[Me Myself]

Just what I thought. It's her body, and somehow it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter to you that her body is being used against her will.

You never answered my question on if you are playing Devil's Advocate, btw.

She knew full well that by having sex she risked submitting a new life to COMPLETE dependency on her. Having sex anyways and then refusing to give this blood is not the same than refusing to give blood to someone you dont have anything to do with.

 

[waitasec]

Of course. Outlawing convenience murder of the unborn.

you make it seem as though those who have decided to go through an abortion take this issue lightly. i don't think that is the case.
of course women are struggling with this idea and struggle with the predicament they find themselves in.

you must concede that a woman's body is her own body...and you still haven't answered my question with regards to miscarriages...
why would choice matter if the body decides to do it anyway regardless of how much the mother may want to have a baby?

will you please answer me that...

 

[McBell]

I have already said this before.
She needs no further choices. She already made hers at the moment she had sex.

If this is all the further you are able to take your argument, then you have failed.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Nothing wrong.
At the moment she had sex with a man she willingly decided to bear a particular kind of responsibility. This is merely facing the consequences of your own actions.

She faces the consequences of her actions by deciding what to do about the pregnancy.

 

[waitasec]

She knew full well that by having sex she risked submitting a new life to COMPLETE dependency on her. Having sex anyways and then refusing to give this blood is not the same than refusing to give blood to someone you dont have anything to do with.

so did he.

 

[Me Myself]

I asked for what is wrong with a woman's complete bodily autonomy, and you equated that perspective with murder, larceny, etc.

The level of distrust of a woman making choices

Human making choices. I dont know why you would exempt women.

Its not like they do not abort today, so I know we are discussing what we are discussing.

What is being asked is to give them license to kill the unborn.

I dont think anyone should have that kind of autonomy, be it the male doctor or the female woman asking for the abortion or the female doctor or anyone.

 

[Me Myself]

so did he.

Naturally, he should not try to kill the child neither.

 

[McBell]

Of course. Outlawing convenience murder of the unborn.

Spoken like someone who knows nothing more about abortion than the propaganda spread on Fox news...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Human making choices. I dont know why you would exempt women.

Its not like they do not abort today, so I know we are discussing what we are discussing.

What is being asked is to give them license to kill the unborn.

I dont think anyone should have that kind of autonomy, be it the male doctor or the female woman asking for the abortion or the female doctor or anyone.

And what you are demanding is that her body is being utilized against her will for 9 months, putting her health at risk.

So riddle me this, Batman....is the fetus more important to consider than the woman?

 

[Me Myself]

you make it seem as though those who have decided to go through an abortion take this issue lightly. i don't think that is the case.
of course women are struggling with this idea and struggle with the predicament they find themselves in.

you must concede that a woman's body is her own body...and you still haven't answered my question with regards to miscarriages...
why would choice matter if the body decides to do it anyway regardless of how much the mother may want to have a baby?

will you please answer me that...

Thunderstorms happen, but if I decide to tie someone up on a lightning rod just before the thunderstorm, dont tell me it is just the same as if he was walking down the street and a ligthning happened to strike him.

 

[Alceste]

So what?

That sums it up. "So what" if the woman is to experience back pain, nausea, permanent physiological change, stretch marks, the loss of her income, put on twenty or thirty pounds, then have her genitals torn open during several hours of extreme pain, then not sleep through the night for months on end, then spend the next couple decades completely sublimating her own needs and interests to the best interests of her child. No biggie, right? Far more important that a fertilized egg that was more likely than not to have miscarried anyway gets the maximum opportunity to become a person.

Unless that fertilized egg turns out to be female, I guess, in which case her "personhood" becomes a matter of "so what?" and her only function is to churn out babies.

 

[Koldo]

That the fetus is not a part of the womans body.
I never claimed it was.

You have been acting as if you were saying this.
Otherwise, you are using an irrelevant argument.
Because i have already said:
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS THE WOMAN WHO BEARS THE CHILD.

Yeppers.
Now how does making one choice disqualify choices that have to be made as a result of the choice she made?

Depends on the choice. If it takes away her responsibility to support the child, yes.

I am talking about your use of the word "arbitrary" when describing raising a child.

Interesting how you think choosing to raise a child is such and "arbitrary" thing.

I didn't describe 'raising a child' as arbitrary.
I didn't even mention it.

What i said is that you have been using arbitrary REASONS to justify the use of a double standard.

She does not have the responsibility of giving birth unless she decides to not get an abortion.

If she doesn't have the responsibility of supporting a child if she gets pregnant, then the man also doesn't have the responsibility of supporting a child if she gets pregnant.

The woman is responsible for choices/actions.
You seem to be whining that she has more choices after having sex.
She has more choices simply because it is her body.

I am not whining.
I am right out saying she can't have any other choice if the sex binds the man to the responsibility of supporting a child.

Yes, you have repeated it ad nauseum and it is just as irrelevant now as it was the last umpteen times you mentioned it.

Ah, are you talking to yourself?

 

[Alceste]

She agreed to take responsibility for the child that could be born at the moment she had sex by supporting him/her.

You keep saying that, but it never seems to overcome the hurdle that it is a fact that one more option is still available to her, legal or not.

 

[Me Myself]

And what you are demanding is that her body is being utilized against her will for 9 months, putting her health at risk.

So riddle me this, Batman....is the fetus more important to consider than the woman?

Than her comfort? yes, definitely.

Now if it comes down to a risk on her life, then the situation changes.

And I am not demanding anything. I am not telling them go have sex, I am not telling them not do corrective surgeries to make sure you will not have a baby on you or an unwanted pregnancy, that would be purposeless. I am merely saying that if they knew that by having sex they would be risking making a new life and putting such life in a situation of COMPLETE dependency upon her... well it is not at all the same as just not giving blood to anyone.

It is their responsibility the baby is there. Not their responsibility alone, but thats why the father is to be required and legaly bound to help on anything he can.

 

[Me Myself]

You keep saying that, but it never seems to overcome the hurdle that it is a fact that one more option is still available to her, legal or not.

legal or not, I can always take a knife and stab someone.

What is this suppose to say about anything?

Of course they are biologically and physically capable of doing it, if it was imposible this would be fiction not and actual discussion about a reality o.0

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Than her comfort? yes, definitely.

Now if it comes down to a risk on her life, then the situation changes.

And I am not demanding anything. I am not telling them go have sex, I am not telling them not do corrective surgeries to make sure you will not have a baby on you or an unwanted pregnancy, that would be purposeless. I am merely saying that if they knew that by having sex they would be risking making a new life and putting such life in a situation of COMPLETE dependency upon her... well it is not at all the same as just not giving blood to anyone.

It is their responsibility the baby is there. Not their responsibility alone, but thats why the father is to be required and legaly bound to help on anything he can.

You're okay with a woman's body being used against her will.

I'd love to see how that translates to a man's body being used against his own will 24/7 for 9 months and see how that argument goes.

 

[waitasec]

Thunderstorms happen, but if I decide to tie someone up on a lightning rod just before the thunderstorm, dont tell me it is just the same as if he was walking down the street and a ligthning happened to strike him.

no one is tying anyone up though...
the embryo is still at the mercy of the body
why does a conscious choice matter if the body decides for itself?