Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[ppp]

But also we should discourage it.

No we shouldn't, it is a choice a woman can and should make about her own body. As a man, I am content to have no say.

Absolutely. It should be a choice made by a person with a uterus, consulting only with those they choose.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No we shouldn't, it is a choice a woman can and should make about her own body. As a man, I am content to have no say.

And what about the fetus?

 

[1213]

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.
...

A new born baby and probably not even a “progressive liberal” young adult would survive without someone taking care of them. Does it mean they can be killed, if they are annoying?

 

[leroy]

I've emboldened the relevance, hope this helps.

You still have to justify why is it relevant, Why is it wrong to kill an innocent human, except when he is geographically located inside a woman, sounds arbitrary to me.


but if being “inside the body” is relevant then allow me to propose an other hypothetical scenario........



A mad scientist inserts a chip inside your body. This chip causes the same level of discomfort that an embryo would.

This scientists tells you “I will remove the chip if you kill an innocent child” ……… do you have the right to kill the child?

I ahve no idea what you mean by repent, or why a woman's choice to have sex need involve it?

The woman has the right to decide if she wants to share her body or not, but once the body is being shared, you can´t longer repent and kill the beneficiary.

What? The womb is part of the woman's body, and it can exist without the foetus as can the woman, the foetus cannot exist without the woman's body.

how does that prove that the womb is part of the mother and not part of the fetus (or both)?..............
The point that I am making is that once pregnancy starts, the body is being shared by both the mother and the fetus , both are sharing organs and fluids, it´s not even clear where one body starts and where the other finishes.

 

[GardenLady]

except when he is geographically located inside a woman,

Spoken like someone without a uterus.

As some who actually knows (1) a women whos embryo was "geographically located" within her uterus as a the result of being drugged at a party and raped, who the eff are you to make a decision about that? And (2) who knows a women who suffered extreme medical risk (though she continued the pregnancy and delivered without dying, that was FAR from certain), who the eff are you to remark on that as well?

How do we handle this? Do we subject every woman to (traumatically) justifying her situation? That his highly cruel.

 

[leroy]

No we shouldn't, it is a choice a woman can and should make about her own body.

That is nonsense for many reasons

1 You can do whatever you want with your body, as long as you don’t harm (let alone kill) others. We all agree with this principle, why making an arbitrary exception with pregnancy? ………you don’t even have the right to smoke in public places, because you might harm others., my point is that bodily autonomy is not an “immovable right”

2 it’s not her body, it´s someone else’s body.

3 the woman caused the state of dependency / the fetus depends on the mother, because she force him in to this situation …….

4 9 months of “enslavement” is a minor discomfort, compared to the evilness of killing an innocent human

5 once you donated/share your organs, you are rejecting your right of bodily autonomy, at this point you can’t (shouldn’t ) repent. ……… lets say that first you agreed to swim with a baby (the baby can’t swim on his own), the baby at this point is fully dependant on you and is using your body to survive, can you repent at the middle of the sea and drop the baby?

 

[GardenLady]

the woman caused the state of dependency

Again, spoken like someone without uterus. Women who are in abusive relationships, women who are drugged at parties where they are not drunk or drugging, women who diligently use birth control that fail. Who are you to make this choice? You apparently (I'm going by your posts) are lacking in empathy and sympathy. You have no standing to judge someone else's life.

 

[leroy]

Spoken like someone without a uterus.

As some who actually knows (1) a women whos embryo was "geographically located" within her uterus as a the result of being drugged at a party and raped,

You probably have a fried whose father is a rapist, don’t you think that your friend has the right to live?....... my point is that if you are going to kill anyone kill the rapist, not the innocent child

If the sons of rapists have the right to live, why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus whos father is a rapist?...............if the fetus is not a human, then the rape is irrelevant the woman can do whatever she wants with it regardless if she was raped or not.

(2) who knows a women who suffered extreme medical risk (though she continued the pregnancy and delivered without dying, that was FAR from certain), who the eff are you to remark on that as well?

Yes if the woman is at risk and killing the embryo is the only way to survive, then yes abortion would be justified.

Killing a human that would die anyway to save your own life is justified regardless if this other human is an embryo or a child or an adult

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, but children shouldn’t be victims,

And people shouldn't get cancer.
But there you go.

 

[GardenLady]

my point is that if you are going to kill anyone kill the rapist, not the innocent child

It appears from your posts that you cannot possibly imagine what it might be like for a woman to actually carry the child of someone who raped her. A complete lack of empathy. Shame on you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The woman tacitly agreed to share her body with someone else, once she made that decision she can´t no longer repent

False. You have authority over your body and the right to change your mind.

……….not to mention the womb would also be part of the embryos body

It isn't.

Imagine that a crazy scientist connects himself with you for a weird experiment (against your will) now you are fully dependent on this scientist such that if the scientists disconnects his body from you, you will die.

Another false analogy.

Do you think the scientist should have the moral (and legal) right to kill you? Can the scientists repent from his experiment and simply kill you? Or should he wait 9 months until th e experiment is done and its safe to disconnect you?

In this case, yes. For the simple reason that you were perfectly fine at first and then this dude forced himself on you.

This is more akin to forcing a rapists to make payments to his victims in case he got her pregnant and the victim choosing to have the baby.

It's false analogy after false analogy with you on this topic

 

[ppp]

It's false analogy after false analogy with you on this topic

Amen!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Assuming that the mother doesn’t want to abort, but the father doesn’t want to provide financial support, do you think the mother should receive some sort of fanatical support from the government? ………….should citizens pay extra taxes to overcome the irresponsibility of the father?

First, you need to REALLY let go of this default idea that the father is "irresponsible". You have already agreed to my scenario that the father can also be tricked and thus have no responsibility at all.

Secondly, you don't need to pay "extra" taxes. Any sensible country will already have solidarity social programs in place to help out single parents.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There would be fewer abortions still, if most of the people who claim to be pro-life were not just merely pro-birth.

Ha! That's a good one!

Indeed, these people don't seem to be "pro-life" at all... they are just "pro-birth".
Nice. So true on so many levels.

 

[leroy]

Again, spoken like someone without uterus. Women who are in abusive relationships, women who are drugged at parties where they are not drunk or drugging, women who diligently use birth control that fail. Who are you to make this choice? You apparently (I'm going by your posts) are lacking in empathy and sympathy. You have no standing to judge someone else's life.

Yes that sucks, I have no problem in supporting a law for castrating all rapists, but why should the inocent human that is geographically located inside the womb has to pay with his life what his father did? Sounds like north Korea to me

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A new born baby and probably not even a “progressive liberal” young adult would survive without someone taking care of them. Does it mean they can be killed, if they are annoying?

1. pathetic attempt at insulting people with your silly "progressive liberal" comment is noted

2. unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point. Anyone, including a foster home, could take care of born humans. But a fetus can only survive in the mother's belly. In that sense, during those months, it is essentially biologically a parasite.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's time to remember that we shouldn't
be telling each other why they aren't qualified
to have an opinion, or advocating inflicting
sexual mutilation on people, or insulting each
other, or not having enuf empathy or....you
know...making it about the poster rather than
the issue.
Let's keep it civil & on topic, folks.

 

[leroy]

First, you need to REALLY let go of this default idea that the father is "irresponsible". You have already agreed to my scenario that the father can also be tricked and thus have no responsibility at all.

I don’t agree, I think the father should take care of 50% of the finical support of the child even if he was tricked by the woman. (Assuming that the woman can’t by herself)….it sucks it´s unfair, but it´s not the child´s fault he still deserves food shelter and basic needs.

Secondly, you don't need to pay "extra" taxes. Any sensible country will already have solidarity social programs in place to help out single parents.

I know, but this programs should only be used as a last resort (for example if the father doesn’t pay for support despite the fact that he is legally obligated) ………or at least this is my view. …. And yes allowing parents to run away would imply more taxes (or sacrificing some other social program)

Not to mention that in 99% of cases it would-be impossible for the man to prove that he was tricked by the woman so what do you suggest?............

1 Give the man the benefit of the doubt and allow him to run away from his responsibility if he argues that he was tricked?

2 Force the father to pay until he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was tricked.


As I side note, If where to bet, I´ll bet that cases where the man was tricked are statistically insignificant.am I wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

As I side note, If where to bet, I´ll bet that cases where the man was tricked are statistically insignificant.am I wrong?

Being beaten to death by a cop is also statistically
insignificant. But it's still worth addressing...even
if the population is small.

 

[ppp]

Ha! That's a good one!

Indeed, these people don't seem to be "pro-life" at all... they are just "pro-birth".
Nice. So true on so many levels.

I know! It boils down the pro-life movement so succinctly. Wish it was mine!