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

[Me Myself]

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

Her will was expressed when she assumed the risks of sex, the same way the man did. Both will have to take care of it each on their ways.

And honestly, I would prefer 9 months of pregnancy than 18 years of paying for the life of a human beings worth.

Not that I would be an absent parent if this happened to me, but from direct pragmatical happenings, 9 months may be horrible and all you want, but there are 9 months. They will pass, and you will not have killed a human being before it even had the chance to open his/her eyes for the first time.

Its a human life and one that comes from you. Few things can strike me as more sad than to be so cold to our own children...

 

[McBell]

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.

Yes it does.
it is her body therefore it is her choice.
Why you would think that her body being used is irrelevant is something I cannot fathom outside your being desperate for an argument.

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

Again, you have not addressed the point.
you have merely made the same statement without any thing to support it.

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

really?
So what is the choice you claim is "arbitrary"?

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

Since you have completely failed to show any double standard is being employed...

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.

If she decides to get an abortion, then the mans responsibility ALSO stops.
If she does not get an abortion, then she also has a responsibility to the resulting child.

I wonder why you do not think it as unfair that the father has no responsibilities from conception to birth, but the mother does?

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.

Again, based on what?
And also again, I mean other than you thinking it "unfair"....

Ah, are you talking to yourself?

I must be, seeing as you are doing nothing but repeating the same thing over and over...

 

[Me Myself]

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?

Thats like saying why not kill a very sick man if he might die from sickness anyways o.o

 

[Willamena]

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

To Canada's legal system it was a no-brainer: a guarantee called "security of person" is built right into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that says the state shall not determine ("force" was the word they used in the court case) what happens to a person in body.

 

[Alceste]

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

Calling abortion murder doesn't make it murder. If you woke up one day with another person riding around on your back, and they had tubes stuck into you to send your own blood coursing through their veins, and you disconnected those tubes and walked away knowing they would not survive without your blood, you would not be charged with murder. Hypothetically speaking.

 

[McBell]

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

except that you argument seems to be dependent upon ignoring certain realities...

 

[Me Myself]

Calling abortion murder doesn't make it murder. If you woke up one day with another person riding around on your back, and they had tubes stuck into you to send your own blood coursing through their veins, and you disconnected those tubes and walked away knowing they would not survive without your blood, you would not be charged with murder. Hypothetically speaking.

Lets say I first made the person be there and only be capable of surviving in that way and THEN I disconnected the tubes. Would that be charged for murder?

 

[McBell]

Lets say I first made the person be there and only be capable of surviving in that way and THEN I disconnected the tubes. Would that be charged for murder?

please be so kind as to explain how this is relevant to the thread or even one of the thread tangents.

 

[Willamena]

Her will was expressed when she assumed the risks of sex, the same way the man did.

Pregnancy is not a necessary consequence of sex.

 

[Alceste]

Lets say I first made the person be there and only be capable of surviving in that way and THEN I disconnected the tubes. Would that be charged for murder?

Nope.

 

[Me Myself]

Nope.

o.o.

Let me get this straight, I put the person in such a position as to where the only means he will have of survival is to remain connected to me by tubes and then I take out the tubes, and that is not murder?

 

[waitasec]

Thats like saying why not kill a very sick man if he might die from sickness anyways o.o

no it's not.

i'm curious though, what makes you think that.

besides euthanasia is something i think should be legalized
(but we are going off topic)

 

[Koldo]

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.

It does matter. But the moment she had sex, her body is not being used against her will.

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

It is more like: Use a certain argument you don't agree with and see what happens!

I use it in some posts, while in others i clearly point out its flaw.

What i disagree with is when it was said that the choice to have sex automatically makes the men responsible for the child that may be born as a result of this act. I disagree with this, more than anything else, because if the sex binds the man, it must, unless we apply a double standard, bind the woman to the obligation of supporting her child. And if a woman resorts to an abortion, she is doing the opposite of what it means to 'support her child'.

I would say that what binds a man/woman to this responsibility is the existence of a person, who shares half of his/her DNA, and that is in need of support.

 

[McBell]

o.o.

Let me get this straight, I put the person in such a position as to where the only means he will have of survival is to remain connected to me by tubes and then I take out the tubes, and that is not murder?

if said person kills you, would that be murder, suicide, or perhaps self defense?

 

[Koldo]

Because she has the option to abort the pregnancy.

I mean: Why does she have the option to abort the pregnancy?

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

It doesn't matter.

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.

It doesn't matter if the pregnancy takes place in the woman's body.
She accepted this the moment she had sex.

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

Double standard.

 

[Me Myself]

no it's not.

i'm curious though, what makes you think that.

You are telling me that because MAYBE the body will kill the child, then making sure it does is no big deal.

So if we are talking about a sickness that MAY kill the person, killing this person would be comparable.

besides euthanasia is something i think should be legalized
(but we are going off topic)

Indeed another topic entirely but worked as an analogy and I am trying to understand what you mean.

 

[Koldo]

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

If this is all you can say, you are the one who failed.

 

[Koldo]

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

No. She faces the consequences of her actions by accepting the choice she made at sex. The choice that she would have to support a child if she got pregnant.

 

[Koldo]

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.

She accepted all this at the moment she had sex.

 

[McBell]

I mean: Why does she have the option to abort the pregnancy?



It doesn't matter.



It doesn't matter if the pregnancy takes place in the woman's body.
She accepted this the moment she had sex.



Double standard.

and once again you are merely repeating the same thing.

You have as yet to explain your alleged double standard, you have yet to show that it does not matter that the woman's body is used for the duration of the pregnancy, you have as yet to show that the woman's choices should have to stop when the mans choices are depleted.

We are merely going to go round and round on the merry-go-round unless you are able to actually support your argument with something other than "it's not fair".