Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted, but in the case of pregnancy the "donation " was already made.

Not necessarily.

You dont have the legal right (nor the moral right) to donate a part of your body then repeat and kill the beneficiary of that donation.

But you have to right to change your mind.

For example once you donated a kidney, you can't repent and kill the beneficiary of your kidney..........so why making an arbitrary exception with pregnancy?

False equivalence again.

The analogy with donating a kidney is not valid after the fact.
Once the donation has occurred, there is no way back. The equivalence with pregnancy here, I would say, is when the pregnancy is already in advanced stages.

But if you agree to kidney donation and are then being prepped for surgery... both of you are on the tables, ready to get put to sleep... at this point you can still say "wait, I changed my mind". And that is well after you agreed to it and all tests and preparations were done.

And all this is assuming that it is a planned pregnancy. If you took all precautions and used a condom for example, and you have the bad luck of being in that small probability of the condom being defective or whatever, then that's a very different situation alltogether also. That is no longer the equivalent of first consciously agreeing to the "donation".

That's more like being tricked into it.

 

[Sheldon]

If children are women’s body, you are also some woman’s body and the woman is allowed to kill you, if she feels you are annoying?

A developing foetus is part of a woman's body, as can be amply demonstrated from the fact it would not live without it. A foetus is not a child.

I think it is ridiculous and irrational to claim that babies are woman’s body.

I agree, but then a blastocyst and a foetus are not babies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant, I can agree with those statements....so what ? .... how does that justify the killing of an innocent human.?

Another dishonest representation of the facts................


Here's the definition of abortion: the termination of a pregnancy.

There is no "killing" involved. A c-section is also an abortion.
If the fetus isn't viable to survive outside, then death of the fetus is indeed a side effect of the procedure.
Just like choosing not to donate a kidney has as side effect that the person needing the kidney dies.

You didn't kill the person by not giving a kidney.

 

[Sheldon]

The question in the post is: should men have the right to abandon the child (and the woman) without paying any sort of pension or child support?

No.

If the father doesn’t want be a father can he avoid the responsibility of taking care of the child?

Of course, don't get anyone pregnant, otherwise no.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm prolife. The man and the woman should both oppose abortion.

So because you don't agree with abortion, everyone else must agree with you? If anyone doesn't want an abortion, then they don't have to have one. FYI research shows that abortion rates are higher in countries where they cannot be obtained legally. Proper sex education, delivered in a timely fashion, and free access to contraception have been shown to be the most efficacious way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's.

 

[Sheldon]

Woman should have the right to give their child to adoption even if that represents “gender inequality” (I don’t support abortion)

Women do have that right? They also should have the right to terminate the pregnancy, since to deny them that right, would take away their bodily autonomy, that is the very definition of enslavement.

 

[Sheldon]

Why can the man do whatever he wants with his own body?...........why can’t the man decide not to use his legs (his body), walk to the bank and make a deposit for the fanatical support of his children?

The man already made his decision, when he decided to have sex, you're talking about a man not accepting responsibility for that decision because he doesn't like the result. A woman is forced to make choices afterward, and one of those might be to terminate the pregnancy, since it is her body and she cannot just walk away.

 

[HonestJoe]

Male abortion, also called paper abortion, is a concept that suggests the men should be free to decide if they want to be fathers or not.

Abortion is a clinical term that refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Only a person who is pregnant can have an abortion.

I think using the term abortion to refer to the legal, financial and practical questions of parenthood is a grossly dishonest attempt to misrepresent the facts of the various issues involved. The questions of abortion are distinct from the questions of legal parenthood and the financial and social aspects around that. There are obvious connections but they should not be conflated in any way.

The logic is: if woman have the right to decide not to be mothers and have the right to avoid such responsability, why can’t men have the same right and decide not to be fathers.

This is the common error in this whole debate. Abortion is not about deciding not to be a mother. Abortion is about terminating a pregnancy.

In principle, there are three roles involved in any pregnancy; the mother, the father and the pregnant person. Each role comes with it's own set of rights and responsibilities. Those of the mother and father will be exactly the same and those of the pregnant person quite different. The complication is that in most cases, the mother and the pregnant person is the same individual, and so they end up with a combined set of rights an responsibilities, different to those of the father.

My example for demonstrating this is the case of surrogacy, where a fertilised egg from the mother and father is implanted in a surrogate. The pregnant woman is not the same person as the biological mother of the child but it is the pregnant woman who has the final legal (and moral) say on abortion in any given circumstances. The biological mother could seek to legally absolve themselves of parental responsibility for the child but she can't decide on whether the pregnancy should be aborted. In this example, the biological mother has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as the biological father.

 

[Sheldon]

Her body her choice...... until her choices affect someone else's life then it's different.

Most of our choices affect others, it's still her body, and it's still her choice, to do otherwise would remove women's bodily autonomy.

like forcing a vegan woman to take some “non-vegan” medicine or forcing a woman to take a birth a control pill

I think you need to learn a little more about pregnancy, and childbirth, as that equivalence is absurd.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so the man has the obligation to pay for 50% of the Price of the abortion, or to do 50% of the paper work that implies to give the child to a foster family.

But if the woman doesn’t what to abort, nor give the child to adoption, does the man has the right to run away and not pay for financial support?




n

[/QUOTE]

No, the man makes his choice before sex, as it is his body, after that it is the woman's choice as it is her body.

 

[Revoltingest]

My example for demonstrating this is the case of surrogacy, where a fertilised egg from the mother and father is implanted in a surrogate. The pregnant woman is not the same person as the biological mother of the child but it is the pregnant woman who has the final legal (and moral) say on abortion in any given circumstances. The biological mother could seek to legally absolve themselves of parental responsibility for the child but she can't decide on whether the pregnancy should be aborted. In this example, the biological mother has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as the biological father.

Your example doesn't cover the situation of an
unplanned pregnancy between unmarried people.

 

[Sheldon]

So the woman should not open up... since she don't want it... the baby I mean ?

That is creepy enough, without the smiley face, the kind of thing you'd expect a rather crass teenager to say. Are we going to put the man through 9 months of equivalent punishment for his mistake, and then risk his life at the end, with as a bare minimum changes to his body that will lifelong and life changing?

 

[Sheldon]

How about the woman's decision to abort, harming the man and the child... Or does that not happen?
...and what about the man's parents? Grandparents to be are really in joyful expectation. Grandchildren mean a lot to them.

One assumes a rapist enjoys rape, should we then insist they're allowed to? It's not the father's body, and it's not the grandparent's body.

 

[epronovost]

#2
Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain
Unborn babies can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation or earlier
A comprehensive review of the scientific literature[1] including neural development, psychology of pain sensation, and moral implications of fetal pain, concludes that unborn babies may experience pain as early as 12 weeks.
The review notes that neural connections from periphery to brain are functionally complete after 18 weeks.
“Nevertheless, we no longer view fetal pain (as a core, immediate, sensation) in a gestational window of 12–24 weeks as impossible based on the neuroscience.”
The review points out that a fetus may not experience pain in the same way as an adult, but does indeed experience pain as a real sensation, and that this pain experience has moral implications.
Significant because this unbiased review of the scientific evidence and agreement on existence of fetal pain, as early as 12 weeks and certainly after 18 weeks, comes from two highly credentialed medical professionals, one pro-choice.

Good, as I mentionned earlier over 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks of gestation so before the earliest possible estimates for fetal pains. In other words, the crippling majority of abortion cannot cause harm. I would also like to mention that pain as a core immediate sensation and pain as you, I and any baby on Earth feels it isn't exactly the same thing either. One is a very specific emotional and physical experience while the other is a larger set of category. I'd also like to remind you that even if it were physically possible for fetuses to feel pain from 18 weeks onward (and maybe as early as 12), they are still in a sedated state.

No, you cannot say that abortions are immoral because they cause harm. In the crippling majority of cases, they don't and only in an extreme minoriity of cases do they have the possibility, on paper to do so. You can make an argument against later term elective abortion based on the no harm axiom of morality, but not for the immense majority of abortions. All in all, elective abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation is, as far as we can know and assess, not breaking the no harm axiom in the slightest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

While there's certainly a discussion to be had about the rights of men in how much he gets involved - or not - in context of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, the OP isn't really about that.

The OP is about if a man could force a woman who is pregnant of said man, to abort, regardless of what the woman wants.

I think if you go back and read the OP, as that is not what it said. It called the idea "paper abortion," meaning if the woman did not wish to abort, the man should be able to exercise his right not to be saddled with parentage by declaring himself "not to be the father." The baby is still born, but the man is not saddled with it.

 

[epronovost]

In that case, it's an ethical issue, because you are saying that murder is only morally wrong, based on certain conditions - consciousness being a factor. So since a sleeping man won't feel a thing, or even an awake man heavily sedated, it's okay to murder him, because you cause him no harm.
That's basically your argument.
Get rid of anything you don't like, as long as it feels no pain. You don't harm it.

I specifically adressed the major and important difference between consciousness state and presence of consciousness. You can't harm a rock thus you can step on it, but you can't step on babies because it will harm them. WHat makes one perfectly moral and the other not is that one is a conscious human being capable of human suffering and the other one is not. A fetus, while not as innert as a rock doesn't possess any signs of higher consciousness until the third trimester and no capacity for pain until the 12th week at the earliest, most generous estimate (around 18 weeks with reasonnable certainty at the earliest). How can you cause harm to a thing that cannot feel harm and has no consciousness? A person sleeping isn't sedated and to sedate a person you need their consent and with an explicit purpose. A person in a sedated state is also conscious in the sense that it possess the property of consciousness, it's just impared. An early in development fetus isn't impared or otherwise forcefully handicaped; it simply doesn't have certain property and characteristics.

 

[stvdv]

Covid experts don't make sense...first "Don't wear a mask"....then "Wear a mask" ... then "Wear two masks.

True in Holland too.. consistent to be inconsistent

Experts wrote that sex is fine as long as 6 foot social distancing is observed. I don't know of anyone with one that long.

Even if so, I would not be surprised bugs are spread

 

[stvdv]

Experts wrote that sex is fine as long as 6 foot social distancing is observed. I don't know of anyone with one that long.

The longest penis is 2.4 meters

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think if you go back and read the OP, that is not what it said. It called the idea "paper abortion," meaning if the woman did not wish to abort, the man should be able to exercise his right not to be saddle with parentage by declaring himself "not to be the father." The baby is still born, but the man is not saddled with it.

whoops

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="Sheldon, post: 7542444, member: @Sheldon

I think you need to learn a little more about pregnancy, and childbirth, as that equivalence is absurd.

Why is the equivalence absurd……… what is the difference between forcing a woman to take a birth control pill and an abortion pill?

In my view it it´s simple, in the second you are killing a human, (this is a mayor evil) while in the first you are just forcing q woman to take a harmless pill (which is a minor evil)…………..