Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Please... stop already with this faked empathy for a lump of cells, while completely ignoring the physical and mental well-being of conscious sentient rape victims.

 

[leroy]

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.

Assume that the mother has to wait a few days until a foster home is found. Does the mother have the right to kill his baby during those days?.......the baby is fully dependent on the mother, and nobody else can take care of him except for the mother during those days

it is essentially biologically a parasite

Ok that is a different argument, but yes I agree if the embryo is just a parasite, then abortion should be legal.

But if an embryo is just a parasite then you would also have to say things like

1 it shouldn’t be illegal to force a woman to abort (it´s not illegal to force a woman to take drugs and kill parasites)

2 Hitting a woman and killing the embryo as a consequence, shouldn’t be consider a worst crime than hitting an unpregnant woman

3 if a pregnant woman has to face dead penalty for a crime she is guilty of, the state waits until the baby is born before killing the woman, …… you should argue that this law is absurd…. (If he woman has parasites nobody would care if these parasites also die in the electric chair)

In my experience few, if any prochoice people would agree with these points.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What a bad joke.
Gold diggers around the world are cheering for you though.

(Assuming that the woman can’t by herself)

Why is that relevant?

….it sucks it´s unfair, but it´s not the child´s fault he still deserves food shelter and basic needs.

I think it's hilarious how you care more for a lump of cells then for actual people.

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)

Such programs aren't "last resort". They are default for people in specific situations that fall below a certain financial standard.

A single parent who is filthy rich, for example, will not be eligable.
There are criteria in place that makes people qualify for help from such programs.
If you meet the criteria, you are qualified for it. Period.

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?............

A percentage you invented on the spot and without any sort of justification or reasoning.

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.

Again with the sweeping statements concerning what is inevitably a contextual thing which requires investigation into the specific situation. The timing furthermore is also important.

If the guy starts saying such things when the baby is already 2 years old for example as opposed to the guy saying such things from day 1 after a positive pregnancy test.

Situations where the 2 people were already in a long standing relationship vs "they met the day they had sex". There's, once again, plenty of factors that come into play here.

As usually, you see everything in black and white. But reality is off course very very grey.

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

You are wrong. Gold diggers are very real and in certain social circles also very numerous.
There's even somewhat of a trend where single women who want a baby but no relationship, tricked guys into one night stands and instead of throwing the condom away, they got the sperm out with a syringe and inseminated themselves with it.

There's even a word for it: spurgling (sperm burgling).

It happens more then you realize. You can even buy "do it yourself" insemination kits on amazon for 20 bucks. And there are tutorials on how to use those all over the interwebs.


As another sidenote: you could make the exact same argument about rape. How is the woman going to prove that she didn't give consent and that it was against her will? Plenty of such cases also by gold diggers you know... Get a rich dude and have rough sex with him. Rough, so you can get some bruises and scratches and stuff that you can then claim to be "signs of violence" and file a complaint afterwards with local authorities claiming you were raped. If you are a real pro, you'll also do this while ovulating. With some luck you'll get pregnant also and then you can hit the double jackpot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Assume that the mother has to wait a few days until a foster home is found. Does the mother have the right to kill his baby during those days?
.......the baby is fully dependent on the mother, and nobody else can take care of him except for the mother during those days

This ridiculous false analogy has already been addressed and I see no need in doing it again.
Nor do I expect a different outcome.

You'll just ignore it again and fall back on a similar false analogy anyway.
So if you want my response to this nonsense, go back a few posts. I addressed it at least 3 times in this thread.

Ok that is a different argument, but yes I agree if the embryo is just a parasite, then abortion should be legal.

It IS a parasite.

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

But if an embryo is just a parasite then you would also have to say things like

I didn't use the word "just". That's your addition.

1 it shouldn’t be illegal to force a woman to abort (it´s not illegal to force a woman to take drugs and kill parasites)

Where the heck did you get that idea that it's not illegal to FORCE someone to take certain medication?

2 Hitting a woman and killing the embryo as a consequence, shouldn’t be consider a worst crime than hitting an unpregnant woman

False conclusion based on your addition of the word "just".

3 if a pregnant woman has to face dead penalty for a crime she is guilty of, the state waits until the baby is born before killing the woman, …… you should argue that this law is absurd…. (If he woman has parasites nobody would care if these parasites also die in the electric chair)

I have never heard of a women's execution being delayed until her pregnancy is carried through.
Primarily because I have never heard of ANY conviction of a death penalty which is then carried out within 9 months after the verdict.

So yes, it's an absurd law because it would never actually happen in practice.
In fact, in the US there is currently only one woman scheduled for execution. And she is the first one in the last 70 years. And she's not pregnant. So what are you talking about?

It's almost like you are just sucking nonsensical arguments out of your thumb on the spot. Almost.

In my experience few, if any prochoice people would agree with these points.

In my experience very few, if any, prochoice people would agree that you make any kind of sense with all these false analogies and strawmen.

After all this time, you seem to still have no clue what the "bodily autonomy" argument is all about. Why else would you keep falling back on the false analogy of killing toddlers and alike?

 

[nPeace]

Because we are having a conversation on the subject?

Sorry. We were not.
Maybe you confused me with someone else, or just decided your opinion was some sort of factual information you needed to throw in, because it does not fit in conversationally. ...and no, it is not a fact.
Anyway. No worries. I acknowledge your opinion. Okay?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry. We were not.
Maybe you confused me with someone else, or just decided your opinion was some sort of factual information you needed to throw in, because it does not fit in conversationally. ...and no, it is not a fact.
Anyway. No worries. I acknowledge your opinion. Okay?

Whatever makes you feel like you don't need to address the points raised.

 

[nPeace]

Everywhere.

...but you said the OP. The OP does not specify that the child is born.
A father can abandon an unborn child, also.

For what?

"responsibility for the life she [has] helped bring into existence"

 

[nPeace]

Whatever makes you feel like you don't need to address the points raised.

 

[Koldo]

False conclusion based on your addition of the word "just".

Honestly though, either killing a fetus is worthy of a punishment or it is not. It is messed up and arbitrary to say that being the mother or doing it with the mother's approval excuses the action.

 

[nPeace]

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.

You missed the point obviously.
26 weeks is more than double 12 weeks. So which is it? Why not 6 weeks? What if scientist say 6 weeks? Then what?
It highlights my point. They are all assumptions which are not, have not, and more than likely cannot be verified.
So your claim is false.

Spoiler: Your claim

a fetus has no feeling, or is not conscious "during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation.

You come to the wrong conclusions based on assuming that your suppositions are right.
That is my point.

 

[Sheldon]

I see a pitfall in making the argument of when life begins
based upon scientific "facts" that may change or be chosen
ad hoc.

Me too, luckily the scientific facts were not "chosen ad hoc". They were observable testable facts based on scientific research, as the links I offered demonstrated.

If feeling pain is important, what if it's discovered that it's felt much earlier?

You want to base laws on what ifs, and ignore the scientific facts? I already linked the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who stated that rigorous scientific studies have found that the connections necessary to transmit signals from peripheral sensory nerves to the brain, as well as the brain structures necessary to process those signals, do not develop until at least 24 weeks of gestation. Without these connections and structures, the fetus does not have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least 24 weeks of gestation.

Tis not a fallacy to recognize that abortion rights & restrictions will be a negotiated compromise between opposing factions. To recognize the goals of each serves to understand how that compromise will unfold. And to negotiate effectively with them.

I never said it was, and I explained the fallacy you did use, which you have ignored?

That is a strange non sequitur. The shape of the Earth is directly observable & testable, thus it's a scientific fact.

So you can what if scientific facts you don't like, but the ones you do like are immutable, and you don't see any subjectivity there?

Beware hinging an argument of morality upon a technical detail that might not even matter to one's opposition. It smacks of bias confirmation, ie,

It is not a technical detail, it is "directly observable & testable, thus it's a scientific fact." I even linked two separate medical bodies that explained the fact and the research that evidenced it.

Why are your posts littered with unnecessary line breaks? It makes answering them a nightmare?

 

[Sheldon]

And what about the fetus?

What about it?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I suspect you've misunderstood me. My point is if a woman chooses to have the baby, that choice will force men to pay child support for the next 18 years

Then they can file to have parental rights revoked, which means they also lose any right to complain.

 

[Sheldon]

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

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?

IF all you're going to do is make up straw man non sequiturs then I'm disinclined to respond. Read my post, and if you want to respond to what I actually said, then I will read it and give a candid response.

 

[robocop (actually)]

What about it?

Surely if a robot has rights...

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Hi,
Sin without accountability, murder without punishment, sounds very enticing.

Is it wishful thinking ?

"For the true God will judge every deed...,as to whether it is good or evil"."(Solomon)

And as long as Jesus signs off on it, you are good.

 

[Sheldon]

You still have to justify why is it relevant,

I already explained it twice? You made this analogy:

The problem is that with pregnancy the woman already donated her womb, you can’t no longer repent and kill the beneficiary once you made the donation, if you already donated a kidney, you can’t kill the beneficiary and get your kidney back.

I then explained (twice)

The kidney would no longer be part of your body, so it's a very poor analogy.

I don't know how to make that ant clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------

Why is it wrong to kill an innocent human, except when he is geographically located inside a woman, sounds arbitrary to me.

Innocent, geographically? Sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say, and you keep inserting bizarre and irrelevant words into it? If you deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy it would remove her bodily autonomy, this is the very definition of enslavement, whereas an insentient blastocyst or foetus would not suffer the termination of a pregnancy in any meaningful way.

I'm not interested in your mad scientist analogies sorry, they make no sense, and you're struggling to stick to facts a sit is.

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.

I have no idea what that means sorry, why do you keep using the word repent, it's a religious term and has no relevance to the point. A man and a woman have a choice whether to have sex, and If the result is an unwanted pregnancy, then the man's choices end there, but the woman has the right, since it is her own body, to terminate the pregnancy.

how does that prove that the womb is part of the mother and not part of the fetus (or both)?..............

What? You think a womb is not part of the woman's body, seriously?

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.

Nonsense, the foetus develops as part of the woman's body, I have no idea why you even try to claim otherwise. The organs are the woman's, the foetus is initially part of the placenta wall, and then later fed through an umbilical directly receiving nutrients and oxygen through the woman's blood.

 

[Sheldon]

Surely if a robot has rights...

 

[Sheldon]

Assume that the mother has to wait a few days until a foster home is found. Does the mother have the right to kill his baby during those days?.......the baby is fully dependent on the mother, and nobody else can take care of him except for the mother during those days



Ok that is a different argument, but yes I agree if the embryo is just a parasite, then abortion should be legal.

But if an embryo is just a parasite then you would also have to say things like

1 it shouldn’t be illegal to force a woman to abort (it´s not illegal to force a woman to take drugs and kill parasites)

2 Hitting a woman and killing the embryo as a consequence, shouldn’t be consider a worst crime than hitting an unpregnant woman

3 if a pregnant woman has to face dead penalty for a crime she is guilty of, the state waits until the baby is born before killing the woman, …… you should argue that this law is absurd…. (If he woman has parasites nobody would care if these parasites also die in the electric chair)

In my experience few, if any prochoice people would agree with these points.

A foetus is not a baby, abortion does not "kill babies". The foetus as research shows cannot experience the termination of the pregnancy, whereas the fully sentient mother can suffer emotional and physical pain. Your analogies make so sense, as they are either bizarre non sequiturs, or false equivalence fallacies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Me too, luckily the scientific facts were not "chosen ad hoc". They were observable testable facts based on scientific research, as the links I offered demonstrated.

Let's take the feeling pain criterion...
We know that cats feel pain.
There's a question whether some non-mammals do.
This doesn't make them human.
There are some humans (rare condition) who feel no pain.
This seems a poor criterion...even to use as one of many
for a preponderance of evidence argument.

You want to base laws on what ifs, and ignore the scientific facts?

I challenge how the facts are used, eg, the reference
to pain above. Setting a scientific criterion doesn't mean
that the method of choosing it was scientific.
(I have a wee background in science, so I'm sympathetic
to the method. But it has limitations.)

I already linked the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who stated that rigorous scientific studies have found that the connections necessary to transmit signals from peripheral sensory nerves to the brain, as well as the brain structures necessary to process those signals, do not develop until at least 24 weeks of gestation. Without these connections and structures, the fetus does not have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least 24 weeks of gestation.

Those things do not determine that life is human.
Nor do they address the beginning of a human life
that is accorded all the right of citizens...& the
extent of those rights at the various stages of life.

I never said it was, and I explained the fallacy you did use, which you have ignored?

You explained the fallacy that you never said is a fallacy?
That seems a meta-fallacy, eh.
Ignore it?
I addressed it...perhaps not clearly enuf.

So you can what if scientific facts you don't like, but the ones you do like are immutable, and you don't see any subjectivity there?

I'm saying that pro & anti abortion types will seize upon
facts that confirm their bias. I don't know when a human
life should officially begin such that it's afforded legal protections.
I say that no one do that objectively. I see the issue as one
of political compromise. I lean towards bodily autonomy of
the mother being paramount. I also see financial independence
of a father who doesn't want the child as being important.

Perhaps you see this as something that can be reasoned out
to a logical conclusion that's "true". I don't. It will be political
compromise that includes....<shudder>...religious beliefs.

It is not a technical detail, it is "directly observable & testable, thus it's a scientific fact." I even linked two separate medical bodies that explained the fact and the research that evidenced it.

Is it an observable detail that defines one as a human being?
Why choose some details, but not ones equally observable
cited by anti-abortion types, eg, cellular division?

Why are your posts littered with unnecessary line breaks? It makes answering them a nightmare?

I do it to vex you. I figured that you post from
a phone, which doesn't allow the line width I
design my posts for.
But it also makes them easier for me to read,
& decide upon edits...which I occasionally do.