Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[robocop (actually)]

What about it?

Also, do animals have rights?

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, do animals have rights?

It depends upon which animal.
Lobster vs great ape...the latter has more.
Argentina leads the charge!
Argentina Gives “Human” Rights to Ape

 

[Sheldon]

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.

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 "pain" signals, do not develop until at least 24 weeks of gestation, so prior to this a foetus does not even have the physiological capacity to perceive pain.

Does that sound like an assumption to you? Actually forget I asked, it's clear that as with all other debates, your a priori beliefs are closed to any rational or evidential challenges.

 

[Sheldon]

Also, do animals have rights?

I like tangerines.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does that sound like an assumption to you?

Let's say that it is "true", setting aside the fact that
sometimes new understandings in science replace
older ones.
The assumption is what that fact means regarding
the beginning of human life having developed to the
point of being considered a being separate from the
mother, with all attendant rights.

Ya canna win a philosophical argument by just stating
scientific facts. They must be used to support a cogent
argument. Start with premises.
What say you to...
When does the separate human life begin?

Actually forget I asked, it's clear that as with all other debates, your a priori beliefs are closed to any rational or evidential challenges.

Don't make me post a pic of an abused irony meter, bub.

 

[SomeRandom]

Kids are always punished when they have awful parents.

Which is exactly why I think that having kids is not a joke or something you do on a whim.
Ideally, it is planned carefully and agreed upon with the partner. Almost like a contract where both parties commit in shared responsibility - in whatever way they see fit.

Sadly many people tend to be irresponsible and yes, kids are always the victim.

Agreed

 

[leroy]

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

Well this is how courts reason too, the priority is the child’s well-being, justice for the father is a secondary issue. … and I agree.

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

It´s even more hilarious that you don’t even reed,

In this context we are talking about children, and discussing if the feather should be legally obligated to support him financially

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.

And if we allow the parents to run away and not pay for the child´s support there would be more woman that would qualify for such programs and therefore more taxes for everybody



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

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

Interesting, but you didnt answer my question.

Should the man be obligated to prove that he was tricked in order to avoid supporting the child? Or should we simply trust him and belief him.

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)

Sounds like an urban legend to me.

Is there any confirmed case of successful “ sperm burgling”

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.

I don’t see why is this relevant. In my view The father should be legally obligated to support the child regardless if it was rape or not. …


* (well obviously the rapist should be in prison so he cant support the child financially, for this cases we have the social programs that you mentioned.)

 

[leroy]

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.

The point of the analogy is to refute the specific claim that the woman has the option to give the child to a foster family, but she can’t do that with a fetus ……..(therefore it´s ok to kill the fetus and not the child)

My point is that even in a situation where adopting is not viable in this particular moment, (or never) the woman doesn’t have the right to kill the child anyway

So do you agree with this particular point, do you agree that a mother doesn’t have the right to kill his son even if there are no foster families available? (assuming that you agree)…. Do you agree on that the claim that woman can´t give the fetus to a foster family is not a valid claim to support abortion?

(we are talking about this specific claim)

It IS a parasite.

Keepign your view ambigous and vague, how surprising.

Do you claim that a fetus/embryo is a person (and a parasite) or just a parasite like an ambiba?

..
Who is ready for 100 posts where TagliatelliMonster refuses to answer this question clearly and unabigously?
..

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.

The question is, on a hypothetical case, should the state wait until the baby is born?..................
Besides, if the splurging thing really does work as you claimed, then it shouldn’t be very improbable for a woman to get pregnant unpurpose to avoid death penalty (latest for 9 months)

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?

That is because you haven´t made any argument for bodily autonomy, all we have is a “because I say so argument”

What is so special about bodily autonomy? under what basis do you afirm that bodely autonomy trumps the right to live? why is the geographical location of the fetus so relevant ?.............. a definition for bodily autonomy might also work.

 

[leroy]

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

You have to justify your answer, all we have is “because I say so”……… the kidney is no longer in her body, then fetus is in her body…………………so what?

What is the relevant difference between killing someone who has her kidney and killing someone who is using her womb?............don’t just say because the former doesn’t violate bodily autonomy and the last does, explain why is this difference relevant



----------------------------------------------------------

If you deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy it would remove her bodily autonomy, this is the very definition of enslavement,

So what? Not killing and the right to live are more important than bodily autonomy. And quite frankly I´ll bet that in general you would agree with me, you are just making an arbitrary excpetion with pregnant woman.

Can you think in any other situation where killing an innocent human would be justified in order to preserve bodily autonomy?

whereas an insentient blastocyst or foetus would not suffer the termination of a pregnancy in any meaningful way.

I would argue that killing a human is worse than keeping bodily autonomy, even if the human wont suffer

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.

Of course you are not interested in discoursing this analogy because you know that this analogy exposes the absurdity of the pro choice position

 

[nPeace]

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.

Now that you are down to 12 from 26-28, let's keep going.

#3
Medical experts agree that fetal pain begins at 12 weeks gestation and may even be felt as early as eight weeks.

#4
Dr. Caplan argued that because there is no consensus in the scientific community about when a fetus can experience pain, a law requiring doctors to claim that a fetus experiences pain from 20 weeks on “would not only be poor public policy, it would set a terrible precedent for other topics where Congress might choose to mandate disclosures about ‘facts’ for political or even ethical reasons which have no foundation in science or medicine.”

But as with other scientific matters that involve reproductive technologies – and research – the issue of when the fetus feels pain has become highly politicized.

#5
Capacities
Some capacities include self-consciousness, rational thought, and feeling pain. McMahan holds the notion that self-consciousness is a requirement for personhood (McMahan 2002). There is risk in allowing exercisable capacities to define personhood, as doing so may confer more or less moral status to some persons over others. For example, if self-consciousness was deemed an essential characteristic for personhood, it can be said that some persons have more self-consciousness than others and thus have more moral status than others (Lee and George 2005, 13–26). In this example it can easily be seen how bestowing personhood on the basis of capacities necessarily conflicts with the right to equality among people as some persons develop more or greater capacity than other persons and would thus have a higher moral status than others. Extending the argument for personhood on the basis of any other capacity is subject to the same rebuttal. It follows then that all humans are deserving of personhood irrespective of the degree of development of capacities.

Proponents for personhood on the basis of capacities (i.e., McMahan and self-consciousness) may also argue that personhood can be revoked upon the loss of capacities. We argue, however, that even if there was a capacity that was deemed necessary for personhood and this capacity was lost, revoking personhood would be erroneous since capacities can often be restored. Consider that Jones describes the “brains of human beings [as] far from fixed” in relaying the concept of plasticity of brains (Jones 2004, 22–31). In the case of neurodegenerative cell death in Parkinson’s disease (Gaillard and Jaber 2011, 124–33), neurological restructuring of the brain for new synaptic connections potentially allows some functionality to be restored. The brain is able to create new connections to restore abilities. For example, if the capacity for speech is hindered or lost, it is possible that the brain can restore some or all of the ability for speech by creating or restructuring neural networks. The range of plasticity for which the brain is capable of restoring capacities (and which specific capacities) which have been lost is unknown. Thus, defining personhood by capacities encounters an ethical incongruency in clinical decision making and associated healthcare provision. Revoking personhood upon loss of capacities, when the capacities may be restored would be erroneous and, thus, defining human personhood using any criteria for capacities is flawed.

 

[Sheldon]

Let's say that it is "true", setting aside the fact that
sometimes new understandings in science replace
older ones.
The assumption is what that fact means regarding
the beginning of human life having developed to the
point of being considered a being separate from the
mother, with all attendant rights.

Ya canna win a philosophical argument by just stating
scientific facts. They must be used to support a cogent
argument. Start with premises.
What say you to...
When does the separate human life begin?

Don't make me post a pic of an abused irony meter, bub.

We don't have to assume it is right, why do you keep calling it an assumption, when it demonstrably is nothing of the sort?

I also never claimed it was an argument "for" abortion. It is a response to a specific objection from those who oppose abortion, as I explained from the very first.

 

[Sheldon]

the woman doesn’t have the right to kill the child anyway

Abortion does not involve killing a child.

 

[leroy]

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.

The problem is that instead of refuting the point of the analogy , you are making a whole new argument and then dishonestly argue that the analogy is a false equivalence.

The point of the analogy is to refute the "women can't give the fetus to adoption " argument .

If you are not making that argument then the analogy doesn't apply to you.


As for the argument that you are making I would argue that is wrong to kill a person even if he doesn't feel any physical pain. And even in this case the right to live tromps "the right of bodily autonomy "

Quite frankly I think you agree with me in general, you are just making an arbitrary exception with pregnancy. ... in any other situation you would never support killing an innocent person (painlessly) for the sake of bodily autonomy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It depends upon which animal.
Lobster vs great ape...the latter has more.
Argentina leads the charge!
Argentina Gives “Human” Rights to Ape

Think dogs in much of Asia, and dogs in much of the America's -- dinner versus best friend; delicacy versus support worker.

 

[leroy]

I already



I have no idea what that means sorry, why do you keep using the word repent,

My apologies , "repent " has a non religious connotation in Spanish.......with repent i simply mean "change your mind"

You cant donate an organ, and then change your mind and kill the befeciary . (You can change your mind before the donation) .... this applies both with kidneys and wombs , I don't see any relevant difference, and all you have is "its not the same because I say so"

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

Both are sharing the organ, both have the same right, specially because the woman already donated her womb

Nonsense, the foetus develops as part of the woman's body, I .

Are you saying that the fetus is part of the woman's body ? If not care to explain the actual point that you are making?

 

[Sheldon]

the kidney is no longer in her body, then fetus is in her body…………………so what?

So they are very different scenarios, thus your analogy was facile nonsense.

So what?

So I happen to think enslaving people is immoral, as it causes untold suffering. You clearly don't care, probably because it's not your bodily autonomy that will be lost, and you want us to believe this is because you care about an insentient clump of cells, in a thread where you are advocating that a man should also have the right to decide to tell a woman what to do with her own body, and demand she terminate a pregnancy. Come off it.

Not killing and the right to live are more important than bodily autonomy.

A foetus cannot suffer it's termination in any meaningful way, to care more for an insentient collection of cells than for a fully sentient human, who can suffer is immoral. Given your histrionics over men being forced to pay mere money for an unwanted pregnancy, it is rather telling that you seem to have little or no concern for the suffering of women.

And quite frankly I´ll bet that in general you would agree with me, you are just making an arbitrary excpetion with pregnant woman.

It's not arbitrary though is it, can you not read?

Can you think in any other situation where killing an innocent human would be justified in order to preserve bodily autonomy?

Firstly you believe it is cursed with sin, so please stop with the hyperbolic use of the word innocent. How many different ways does it have to be explained to you, that a foetus is not human in the sense the sentient woman it is developing in is. The claim is also a straw man, as no one has said this is justification for an abortion. It is for a woman to decide what her reasons are, as far as I am concerned it needs no justification, as it is her body.

When you grow a uterus you can make that choice. Some men are still struggling to cope with the idea of sexual equality, but cope they will have to. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion doesn't have to have one, ever, and any man who doesn't want to father a child doesn't have to. A man's body is his to do with as he chooses, but his choices do not extend to what a woman may do with her body, no matter how much some men want to have that power over women.

I would argue that killing a human is worse than keeping bodily autonomy, even if the human wont suffer

Of course you would claim that, because it is never going to be your bodily autonomy that is taken away, quelle surprise you don't care about enslaving women. Lets not forget though you have predicated this thread on the idea that man should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, and terminate a pregnancy, if the man doesn't want the inconvenience of a child, and the fiscal burden that entails. So I find your stance fairly dubious.

Of course you are not interested in discoursing this analogy because you know that this analogy exposes the absurdity of the pro choice position

I know nothing of the sort, only that you seem to love making sweeping claims about what others think.

 

[Sheldon]

My apologies , "repent " has a non religious connotation in Spanish.......with repent i simply mean "change your mind"

Well this assumes there is a change of mind, it is more than feasible that a woman who seeks a termination never wanted to be pregnant.

You cant donate an organ, and then change your mind and kill the befeciary . (You can change your mind before the donation) .... this applies both with kidneys and wombs , I don't see any relevant difference,

1. Is the kidney you donated part of your body after you donate it?
2. Is the recipient of the kidney a fully sentient human, that can suffer their own termination?
3. Is an insentient foetus or blastocyst able to suffer in the same way, or in any way?
4. Would the person who donated the kidney lose any bodily autonomy by changing their minds afterward?
5. Why would a person change their mind afterward anyway, it's an asinine comparison.

and all you have is "its not the same because I say so"

That sophistry was untrue the first time you used it, it has been untrue each time you have repeated it, and it remains untrue now. Again, read my post, and the answers I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring. I've bullet pointed them this time, and emboldened them, henceforth if you make this false claim, i will simply paste them in response.





Both are sharing the organ, both have the same right, specially because the woman already donated her womb


Are you saying that the fetus is part of the woman's body ? If not care to explain the actual point that you are making?[/QUOTE]

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't have to assume it is right, why do you keep calling it an assumption, when it demonstrably is nothing of the sort?

Scientific facts are just information. You've not
reasoned how particular ones fit into the argument
about when life begins. That is where the
assumptions come into play.

I also never claimed it was an argument "for" abortion.

OK.

It is a response to a specific objection from those who oppose abortion, as I explained from the very first.

OK.
I've nothing to add.

 

[Revoltingest]

Think dogs in much of Asia, and dogs in much of the America's -- dinner versus best friend; delicacy versus support worker.

We eat cute pets here in Ameristan too.
My pet ducks & geese when I was a kid....very tasty.
And I'll bet Arnold Ziffel was lip smack'n good too.

 

[Sheldon]

Scientific facts are just information. You've not
reasoned how particular ones fit into the argument
about when life begins. That is where the
assumptions come into play.

That is probably because I made no claims about when life begins, the scientific facts I linked were about the development of a foetus, and it's inability to experience pain. These were based on research, examined by both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in two separate links, thus to describe it as assumption is incorrect.

This not an argument nor a justification for an abortion, it is merely rebuttal to the claim that a foetus suffer pain during a termination prior to 24 weeks.