Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Kooky]

I don't see a relevant difference between a human in coma and an embryo.

Okay, then we have no basis from which to debate. Take care.

 

[leroy]

You are perfectly correct (unless we talk about the rare occasion were killing a person is defensible like legitimate defense cases)



I think you are trying to draw a false equivalence between two different usage of consciousness.

When I say, fetuses are not consciousness. I am talking about a fundamental characterisitc. You could replace it by the term ''will/free will'' if you prefer; it wouldn't be quite exact, but close enough.

I am not talking about a state of awareness as opposed to asleep for example.



No it's not, unless we are talking about an intermediary state of being instead of a fundamental characteristic.

Well quite frankly I don’t see any relevant difference between a fetus and a man in coma that will wake up in 9 months

My main point is that awareness and feeling pain, are not the reason why humans are valuable (and therefore killing would be wrong)…………if someone is going to be aware in the future to me that is enough to value a human life

 

[epronovost]

Well quite frankly I don’t see any relevant difference between a fetus and a man in coma that will wake up in 9 months

So you don't see a difference between having a will and not? A person in a coma has a will, desires, social bonds and a history to speak off. That she's a state of unconsciousness due to an accident doesn't void her previously expressed will nor does it erases her social status and connections. A fetus does not. It's not just "unconscious". It doesn't have a consciousness at all. Thus, it cannot be harmed. Killing humans is wrong because it harms them (its a solid contender for the worst thing you can do to them so much it causes harm).

My main point is that awareness and feeling pain, are not the reason why humans are valuable (and therefore killing would be wrong)…………if someone is going to be aware in the future to me that is enough to value a human life

Out of curiosity, what makes human especially valuable compared to other life forms or natural phenomenon to you if you don't value their consciousness?

Also, on another note, how can you be sure that a fetus will become aware? While rather rare, miscarriage do happen as do still births. Nobody can say for sure that a pregnancy will result into a child and that every zygote and fetuses will one day be a baby, about half of them don't.

 

[Sheldon]

The condescending and insulting undertone is noted.

Better to note that this is all he appears to be able offer in response. Sneering condescension, and when he has manifestly failed to actually address what is said, seems to be something of an own goal. One has to ask has he failed to understand the arguments he is dismissing, or is his mind so closed he doesn't see any point in engaging in actual debate, and in debate forum at that.

 

[Sheldon]

You made the claim that it should be considered a serious crime to force a woman to take some medicine ……. My comment intended to refute that particular claim.

I've removed all the unnecessary verbiage, to see if this can help you grasp the point. Forcing a woman to do anything against her will ought really to speak for itself.

An alternative might be to suggest forcing you as a man, to take pills that chemically "castrate" you, and thus the problem you have imagined here goes away, no? Since only men who want to have children, need not be forced, or those who abstain.

 

[Sheldon]

DO you agree that forcing a woman to take medicine shouldn’t be considered a serious crime

No, I'm frankly stunned you would suggest otherwise.

Ok explaining your view would be a good start.

Would you be ok with a woman drugging you, against your will?

Do you affirm that a fetus is a human (and a person)…just like a born baby?

No, obviously, since it is a demonstrable fact that has been explained and evidenced again and again in this thread that a foetus is not the same as a baby.

Foetus
noun
"an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception."

So a foetus is self evidently not a baby, and prior to 8 weeks of gestation it is not a foetus either. It is a blastocyst in an amniotic sac attached to the placenta.

 

[Sheldon]

@epronovost I will now rest my case... until the end of 2022.
Research now shows that preborn babies can feel pain very early — by 8 weeks

There is no such thing as a pre-born baby. Also the formation of the nervous system would not enable a foetus to sense pain, since prior to 24 weeks, the necessary connections in the foetal brain are not fully formed, nor of course is the foetus conscious, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Enjoy your rest, and then come back with something tangible. Though I doubt you will be any less closed minded, since these facts have already been explained to you, more than once.

 

[Sheldon]

In my opinion that is not even relevant, there are many ways to kill a human painlessly but it is still wrong.

Many humans don’t feel pain in this moment (people that are in coma or under the effect of anesthesia) but killing them is still wrong.

Might that have something to do with them being humans, and not an insentient developing blastocyst or foetus, that are part of, and dependant on, another human being's body? I believe this has been mentioned to you already...

Also if terminating a pregnancy is wrong, why have you started a thread, predicated on the idea, that men should be allowed to insist a woman does this when a man wants to avoid culpability for the result when a baby might be born?

It seems it is only wrong when a woman has autonomy over her own body, which rather suggest this faux angst over the insentient blastocyst, seems more about you wanting to exert control and power over women, as much of your rhetoric in this thread also implies. Like your transparent and abhorrently creepy suggestion to forcibly drug women. Your rhetoric is more and more disturbing here tbh.

 

[Sheldon]

It's sad that so many people are so heartless, and then pretend that they are so moral without God.
They act more inhumane than serial killers.... more viscious than animals, and then pat themselves on the back.
How sad.
UK RESEARCH SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY THAT FETUSES FEEL PAIN
View attachment 59673

Thankfully, some people are willing to admit their ignorant unintelligence, when they humble themselves in the face of clear evidence, or proof.

There are not, nor can there be, babies in the womb, parroting this kind of idiotically dishonest propaganda speaks for itself.

I note your faux angst for an insentient blastocyst, does not extend to a sentient woman, so the disturbing motives behind this crass an creepy rhetoric is becoming more and more obvious.

 

[Sheldon]

If pain is subjective, you cannot determine that your assertions are correct.

Given you cannot experience the pain another being feels, how is it anything but a subjective concept? We are all BORN with different pain thresholds, and a developing foetus prior to 24 weeks gestation, hasn't started to develop the necessary neural connections in the brain to receive pain, as you have been told, with the scientific evidence, again and again, not some anti-choice website spouting ignorant propaganda.

 

[leroy]

I've removed all the unnecessary verbiage, to see if this can help you grasp the point. Forcing a woman to do anything against her will ought really to speak for itself.

An alternative might be to suggest forcing you as a man, to take pills that chemically "castrate" you, and thus the problem you have imagined here goes away, no? Since only men who want to have children, need not be forced, or those who abstain.

Your problema is that you always take things out of contexts……………….the claim is “if the fetus is just a parasite” then forcing a woman to abort would be as bad as forcing a woman to take pills to kill say worms in your body……………..shure that is something that you shouldn’t so, but it is not a crime that deserves prison. ………. A father that forces her daughter to take pills and kill parasites is not a criminal………..agree…………..please focus in this particular point, do not put my comment out of context

to take pills that chemically "castrate"

What are you talking about? Honestly do you read my comments, ? sometime sit seems that you just make random comments just to see what happens

 

[leroy]

So you don't see a difference between having a will and not? A person in a coma has a will, desires, social bonds and a history to speak off. That she's a state of unconsciousness due to an accident doesn't void her previously expressed will nor does it erases her social status and connections. A fetus does not. It's not just "unconscious". It doesn't have a consciousness at all. Thus, it cannot be harmed. Killing humans is wrong because it harms them (its a solid contender for the worst thing you can do to them so much it causes harm).

No he doesn’t, (at least not at this moment)

and a history t

A cadaver also has history, but his “past consciousness” is not very relevant, he is much much less valuable than a living human with conscience

Out of curiosity, what makes human especially valuable compared to other life forms or natural phenomenon to you if you don't value their consciousness?

I do value consciousness, just not past consciousness , if someone will have consciousness in the future I would value his life.

Also, on another note, how can you be sure that a fetus will become aware? While rather rare, miscarriage do happen as do still births. Nobody can say for sure that a pregnancy will result into a child and that every zygote and fetuses will one day be a baby, about half of them don't.

The same applies for the man in comma, we are not 100% sure that he will wake up, but if doctors say that there is a 50% chance that we will be conscious then his life would be valuable.

 

[Sheldon]

A person in coma doesnt feel pain, nor suffers nor feels distress,

Really? Are you certain about that? The claim seems dubious to me. I'd also point out that this is again a false equivalence, since a human in a coma, is not part of, nor dependant on a woman's body. Thus the decision to let a coma patient live on, does not remove the bodily autonomy of another sentient person.

 

[epronovost]

No he doesn’t, (at least not at this moment)

That doesn't erase his prior will. The person is still sentient and still possess a will. It cannot express it here and then, but it still occurs. In fact your will can even transcend your own death of its notarized.

A cadaver also has history, but his “past consciousness” is not very relevant, he is much much less valuable than a living human with conscience

Indeed, because a person is no longer alive at that point. A fetus never had a will in the first place. It's no more sentient or willful than your spleen.

The same applies for the man in comma, we are not 100% sure that he will wake up, but if doctors say that there is a 50% chance that we will be conscious then his life would be valuable.

Actually, with such little chances, his next of kin could request to stop medical treatment and let him die.

Also, you haven't answered the question. Why do you value life if not for consciousness? What makes life so special?

 

[Sheldon]

That's not what the data shows.

Yes it is, and ample links to bodies of medical experts validating the research have been given. Holding a religious conviction, and getting emotionally hysterical about an insentient blastocyst based on archaic morality, is not objective data.

That's an opinion,

It is, but that opinion is based on medical evidence.

and since there is no consensus on it in science,

There is a consensus among the topmost experts in this field of medical science, and their objective analysis of the research has been linked several times.

you just choose to convince yourself of that.

Oh I think we know who is indulging faith based religious bias here, and who is accepting scientific evidence.

 

[leroy]

Might that have something to do with them being humans, and not an insentient developing blastocyst or foetus, that are part of, and dependant on, another human being's body? I believe this has been mentioned to you already...[

You have this tedious tendency of quoting my comments and then make an irrelevant claim…………the only point that I made is that if the fetus is a human, then weather if a fetus can feel pain or not is not relevant, killing him would be wrong.

Do you agree with this particular point? If not please refute this particular point.

Also if terminating a pregnancy is wrong, why have you started a thread, predicated on the idea, that men should be allowed to insist a woman does this when a man wants to avoid culpability for the result when a baby might be born?

No I would never say such a nasty thing, you are probably confusing me with someone else ....(it´s ok forums are chaotic and this confusions happen)

. Like your transparent and abhorrently creepy suggestion to forcibly drug women. Your rhetoric is more and more disturbing here tbh.

Again stop missrepresenting what I said……………..what I said is that forcing a woman to take drugs and kill parasites (worms for example) is a minor crime that shouldn’t be paid with prison.................

Do you agree or not? If you disagree provide an argument, but please stop misrepresenting what I said.

 

[Sheldon]

prior to 12 weeks old at the very least ???
Ha ha. there is the clear evidence that you don't care about this issue. You just want to believe what you want, regardless of what the evidence shows.
12 weeks or less - even 8 weeks.... and it does not stop there, because science works like that.
Your desired conclusions don't.

You might seem a little more credible without the glib "Ha ha" and the dishonest propaganda from the anti-choice websites. Prior to 24 weeks a developing foetus hasn't started to develop the necessary neural brain connections to sense pain. You have demonstrated enough times you have no idea how the methods of science work. I apologise if I am wrong, but aren't you a YEC who denies the scientific fact of species evolution, who thinks the universe is just a few thousand years old?

 

[leroy]

Indeed, because a person is no longer alive at that point. A fetus never had a will in the first place. It's no more sentient or willful than your spleen.

What about a baby that was born unconscious (or at sleep) doctors say that he will wake up in a few minutes ………. Would it be ok to kill him?..............he doesn’t have a consciences in this particular moment, and he has never had one… so by your logic it shouldn’t be wrong to kill this baby.

Or the way I see it, the fact that he will be conscious in the future shows that his has value.

Also, you haven't answered the question. Why do you value life if not for consciousness? What makes life so special?

I did answer, conciseness (present r future) makes human life valuable ……I simply don’t value past consciences too much

 

[Sheldon]

What does this have to do with the fact that it's not at the most 12 weeks, as you asserted, but 12 weeks or less - even eight week, and could be less, since science does not conclude anything?

@epronovost I leave you with this.
I have nothing more to say to you on this subject. If I thought you were at least being reasonable, it would make a difference.... I gave you data. Not straws. You dismiss it... because it does not fit into your wants.

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

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.”

Take care.

Dissenting opinions does not mean no consensus is held, and I'd bet my house most of the dissenters are not objectively basing their denials on scientific evidence. I could find a "scientist" right now who denied species evolution, but they would likely have no expertise in evolutionary biology. While atheism is far higher among scientists generally than elsewhere, research suggests it is highest among biologists, odd that.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok but not nearly as wrong as killing a person.

I'd need to see some compelling argument that a foetus or a blastocyst is a person? Even then, I'd be disinclined to accept preserving it over the well being of a sentient woman, whose body it was part of, and developing in, was a correct moral choice.