Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[night912]

Male Abortion (should men have the right to abort)

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.

In other words, if the woman gets pregnant and she doesn’t whant to abort, the man should have the right to abandon the child, and not pay any kind of pension, child support nor anything of that sort

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.

I am personally against men and women aborting, but my question is if you are a person who is pro-abortion do you support both type of abortion?

That's illogical, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of being a parent. Both of them already have the right to not become a parent. Both of them can be parents or not, but only one of them can get pregnant, meaning, only one of them has to use their body to share it with a fetus. So why should the man get to decide what the woman does with her body?

 

[Sheldon]

The fact that you are avoiding the question shows that I am makign a good point that you cant refute.

I haven't avoided any questions, maybe try reading my responses before responding to them?

I´ll ask again “what is the relevant difference between a baby that was born premature at 7 months and a fetus that is 7 months old? Why would you call the first a human and the second a non-human?

How would I know, it's your analogy? However since a human being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, and since a foetus or a blastocyst, are none of those things, that would seem to be one difference, and since one is still part of a woman's body, and the other is not, then would seem to be another obvious and significant difference, in any debate on abortion, where a woman's bodily autonomy is being threatened.

If an organism has human DNA then it must be a human………

Your nail clippings contain DNA, so that claim is preposterous.

skin cells are not organisms, they are part of an organism.

Nice non sequitur, goal post shifting aside, a foetus or a blastocyst is also part of an organism, you keep stepping on your own tail here.

Again the benefit of the doubt is no my side, … if you are not sure if it’s a human or not, you should act as if it were a human (until proven otherwise) …

Wow, so you think you're right, so we should assume your right, seriously?

if you see a “human like” shadow in a building you shouldn’t demolish that building until you make sure it was not a human….

Another pointless analogy.

If you what to argue that it´s ok to kill it regardless if it’s a human or not, then you are making a different argument……

Did I claim a foetus is not human? Be a dear and quite that for me as I can't recall, Now about the claim you made that a foetus is a person, are you ever going to justify that claim? You might want to look up the definition of a person, and see where it might differ significantly from an insentient blastocyst or foetus.

.the only point that I am making is that you shouldn’t treat a fetus as if it where a person until proven otherwise so ether agree with this specific point or refuted, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease do not bring an additional and irrelevant point untill you agree or refute this point

I never claimed a foetus was a person, you did, and I expressed doubt? Your histrionics are hilarious though, given the endless and irrelevant analogies are generally coming from you. I'm more than happy to stick strictly to the facts.

But of course you won’t expalin what you mean by evidence right?????

I assume anyone in a debate either has a basic level of literacy, or can use Google.

Besides you did say that a fetus is not a human, so you do have a burden proof,

Not sure I did, but since a human being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, and since a foetus or a blastocyst, are none of those things, maybe you can explain why such a claim is wrong?

 

[Sheldon]

Of course you didn’t mentioned Jailing, but I did in my original comment, that you replied too, … if you don’t what to talk about jailing then why did you participated in that conversation?

What a particularly stupid question, obviously because I was minded to, and this is a debate forum. You need to reason beyond the merely facile, and try and see that you can't bludgeon people's responses into fitting your perspective. This is a debate forum, not a church revival tent, so people get to disagree with anything anyone else says.

Íll ask again given that you haven answer the questions

1 should a father go to jail for forcing her daughter to take pills and kill a parasite (a worm)?

2 should a father go to jail for forcing her daughter to take an abortion pill?

You already admitted you would not want any woman to drug you against your will, so obviously I think it would be immoral for any man to forcibly drug a any woman against their will. Are you asking me if it is a crime, and what the sentencing guidelines are? I'm pretty sure it is a crime, I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines are, but I'd bet it would depend on the circumstances, as it usually does.

Under your view In both cases you are just killing a non-human parasite against the girl´s will, so why would one be a worst crime than the other?

I have never called a foetus or a blastocyst a parasite. I have no idea what the rest of that means, nor do I care, as it's another of your obvious straw men. Deal with the facts please, and not things you are making up, and falsely assigning to me.

Just kidding nobody is expecting a direct answer form you

You could try asking questions that are not loaded false dichotomies.

Are you still beating your wife? YES or NO. Please don't avoid the question by not given a a direct answer to my yes no question.

See how easy they are to create, and how meaningless they are.

 

[leroy]

That's illogical, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of being a parent. Both of them already have the right to not become a parent. Both of them can be parents or not, but only one of them can get pregnant, meaning, only one of them has to use their body to share it with a fetus. So why should the man get to decide what the woman does with her body?

Those are very interesting comments, but i´ts obvious that you didn’t read the comment that you are replying to.

the question is: can men decide not to be parents and refuse to pay for financial support for the child? Should men have this legal right?

 

[Sheldon]

You keep doing the same

Someone makes an argument

I reply to that argument

Then you jump in make an unrelated comment (and provide a whole different argument)

Then you accuse for making a strawman

I'm sorry you don't understand the relevance of you using a straw man fallacy, but that is hardly my fault.

Yes the analogy is flawed for the argument that you are making, but the analogy was not intended to refute your argument but a previous argument made by someone else.

So what, it is still a flawed analogy, maybe address that? Since this is a public debate forum.

Care to quote I single objection that I havent adress?

Yes, you keep saying a foetus or a blastocyst is a human being, and I have pointed out that the definition of a human being doesn't support this. So far all you have done is wave this away.

My coma example is not intendant to refute your objection it was intendednt to refute the original objection the objection being (fetus can’t feel pain therefore it´s ok to kill it)

It doesn't matter, since the fact a foetus or a blastocyst can't experience pain prior to 24 weeks of gestation, is not an argument for abortion, nor was it presented as such. It is a refutation of a claim made by another poster, and often used by those who want remove women's bodily autonomy.

My response to your objection is “So what” you cant kill an innocent human just because he is dependent on you …

I never claimed you could, you are again introducing a straw man argument. A woman decides what happens to her own body, her reasons for doing so are none of my business. The fact the foetus is dependant on her body simply means the result in her terminating a pregnancy will mean the foetus cannot survive.

specially of you create the state of dependency and specially because he is causing a minor discomfort not comparable to death.

I have no idea what you're talking about sorry, minor inconvenience? This surely is another attempt by you to use a straw man.

Babies are also fully dependent of his parents, but that doesn’t mean that you can kill them

Another straw man fallacy, since I have never claimed otherwise.

The specific point that I am making is that human doesn’t deserves to be murdered, just because he is dependent on someone else.

Sigh, another straw man fallacy, as I have never claimed otherwise. I'm starting to think your grasp of the English language is insufficient for any worthwhile debate here.

So ether agree or refute this specific point, do not bring a new point and then pretend that I haven’t answered

What specific point, all I see is you assigning a string of straw man claims to me I haven't made? Though the tone there is again hilarious. Maybe debate is not for you?

 

[night912]

I have dealt with “my understanding” of the bodily autonomy argument, why don’t you develop your argument so that I can refute it? You can start by explaining what you mean exactly with bodily autonomy and then by explaining why bodely autonomy justifies the killing of an innocent human ?

Why should there be special rights for the fetus to kill an innocent human while forcing her to kill herself as well? Can you please explain that?

Before you decide to answer, remember that because you've decided to purposely use words that carries an emotional baggage, you've guaranteed that the word is used against your argument. Only one example is needed in order for it to refute your argument.

Example:
If a preteen is pregnant and there's a 100% chance that she will die giving birth, why should there be special rights given to the fetus so that it will live while forcing the preteen to die?


So please go ahead and present your reasons why a life for a life is justified.

 

[Wildswanderer]

To make a long story short, a woman can abort because it doesn't harm anybody and involve only herself. A man cannot ''abort'' in such a fashion since it can hurt someone, more specifically a child

Oh the irony! Either way a child is hurt.

 

[Sheldon]

You can start by explaining what you mean exactly with bodily autonomy and then by explaining why bodely autonomy justifies the killing of an innocent human ?

Oh dear, sophistry and semantics, followed by another straw man fallacy. If you don't understand the words body or autonomy then go learn them.

Abortion does not involve killing a human being, again learn what a human being is, the word innocent is irrelevant hyperbole, since it is an insentient collection of cells, claiming it is innocent is like claiming a toenail is innocent, or a rock. This is about a woman's bodily autonomy, not assigning rights to an insentient collection of cells, that would enslave women by taking that bodily autonomy away.

 

[Sheldon]

I think that women (nor men) shouldn´t kill innocent people / I am not treating woman as second class citizens I am suggesting that is morally wrong to kill an innocent person regardless if you are man or woman.

Duly noted, now what has that to do with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and terminating a pregnancy? Only I have read anyone suggest anyone should be allowed to kill innocent people? Do you think endlessly repeating this dishonest hyperbole will sway anyone?

 

[leroy]

How would I know, it's your analogy? However since a human being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, and since a foetus or a blastocyst, are none of those things, that would seem to be one difference, and since one is still part of a woman's body, and the other is not, then would seem to be another obvious and significant difference, in any debate on abortion, where a woman's bodily autonomy is being threatened.

This is hilarious, do you even think about what you are saying? So a fatus magically becomes a human/somo Sapiens whent is comes out of the womb? Sometimes the mother has to deal with a medical procedure where the fetus is removed from the womb, and then retored to the womb after the procedure is done, so does the fetus becomes a human outisede womb and then it becomes a none human when he goes back to womb?

Why wouldn’t a fetus be part of the Homo Sapiens, Sapiens specie?

and since one is still part of a woman's body, and the other is not, then would seem to be another obvious and significant difference,

i

That is nonsense even parasites are considered independent organisms even if they are inside the mother, how / fetus magically become humans /and persons when they go out of the womb?

Your nail clippings contain DNA, so that claim is preposterous.

So what, nails are not organisms, whats your point?

Nice non sequitur, goal post shifting aside, a foetus or a blastocyst is also part of an organism, you keep stepping on your own tail here.

The fetus has his own DNA, this makes him a different organism … evenbif the fetus is just a parasite it would still be an independent organism

Wow, so you think you're right, so we should assume your right, seriously?

I am appealing to a general principle, if you don’t know if something is a human you should play safe and assume that it is a human until proven otherwise.

Did I claim a foetus is not human?

Who knows, say somethigns and the you contradict yourself all the time.

Answer yes or no

1 Do you affirm that a fetus is not a person

2 do you affirm that a person is not a human

3 do you afirmt hat the fetus is just a parasite (like a worm)

4 you don’t affirm not reject any of this statements?

Not sure I did, but since a human being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, and since a foetus or a blastocyst, are none of those things,

Why isn’t a fetus a member of the human species, this is not even a controversial even among pro choice people


Embryonic human persons. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research
"In this article, we provide some of the evidence that human embryos are indeed human beings and, as such, deserve a level of respect that is incompatible with treating them as disposable research material. We also consider two recent objections to our position."
"
there is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant and so on"

"However, to destroy a human embryo is precisely to destroy a new, distinct and complete human organism, an embryonic human being"
Some evidence (with a source) that you will obviously ignore

 

[leroy]

Oh dear, sophistry and semantics, followed by another straw man fallacy. If you don't understand the words body or autonomy then go learn them.

Abortion does not involve killing a human being, again learn what a human being is, the word innocent is irrelevant hyperbole, since it is an insentient collection of cells, claiming it is innocent is like claiming a toenail is innocent, or a rock. This is about a woman's bodily autonomy, not assigning rights to an insentient collection of cells, that would enslave women by taking that bodily autonomy away.

The fact that you dotn want to define
“bodily autonomy”v (nor evidence) is very telling. Of course you won’t provide definitions because you know that you will end up in an indefensible position

Abortion does not involve killing a human being, again learn what a human being is

An other statement where you implied that the fetus is not a human, but you are not quite making the affirmation, (so that you can deny that you ever made the claim that a fetus is not a human)

 

[epronovost]

Oh the irony! Either way a child is hurt.

You don't abort a child, you abort a fetus. At the level of development where the crippling majority of elective abortion occur, the fetus doesn't have a consciousness, thus no capacity to suffer and be harmed. A baby does possess one and thus can be harmed.

 

[epronovost]

An other statement where you implied that the fetus is not a human, but you are not quite making the affirmation, (so that you can deny that you ever made the claim that a fetus is not a human)

A human fetus is obviously human in nature just like any of your organs are human. What they are not is a person since they do not have a consciousness and thus don't have a personality, the fundamental component of a personhood.

 

[Sheldon]

This is hilarious, do you even think about what you are saying? So a fatus magically becomes a human/somo Sapiens whent is comes out of the womb?

I agree it is hilarious, you completely ignored my two salient objections after asking for them, and then created yet another straw man using the word magically. If you are simply going to use words that don't define what you're describing, just to wave the facts away, when someone points this out, then yes that is pretty hilarious.

Sometimes the mother has to deal with a medical procedure where the fetus is removed from the womb, and then retored to the womb after the procedure is done, so does the fetus becomes a human outisede womb and then it becomes a none human when he goes back to womb?

Since in your ad hoc scenario it would not have been born, but would have to remain part of the mothers body, as the umbilical would remain essential to it's survival inside the womb of the woman, it remain a foetus. You might do better if you learned the most basic word definitions.

Why wouldn’t a fetus be part of the Homo Sapiens, Sapiens specie?

I give up why? I certainly never claimed it wasn't? Is this deliberate sophistry, omitting several words from the definition to pretend the straw man you have just presented is mine?

how / fetus magically become humans /and persons when they go out of the womb?

So after pages of inaccurate hyperbole, and dishonest sophistry and straw man claims, we know find out that you don't know what a foetus is? Quelle surprise...consult a dictionary please, and educate yourself.

So what, nails are not organisms, whats your point?

Oh good grief, another straw man, where did I claim nails were organisms, and the point obviously, was that you claimed "that anything containing human DNA was human", by that rationale a clipped nail would be human. Now is a clipped nail a human? Does a clipped nail contain human DNA? So your claim was asinine errant nonsense then wasn't it.

The fetus has his own DNA, this makes him a different organism …

Yippee. another straw man to shift the goal posts away from your claim, and my response see above.

evenbif the fetus is just a parasite it would still be an independent organism

Quote me once claiming a foetus is a parasite? No it is not independent, it is attached to and part of the mothers body, first as part of the placental wall and then by an umbilical, from which it gets oxygen and nutrient, and without which it cannot survive. If it could then this discussion about abortion would be rendered moot, obviously.

I am appealing to a general principle, if you don’t know if something is a human you should play safe and assume that it is a human until proven otherwise.

that is not a general principle it your sweeping opinion, and a foetus by definition is not a human being. As has been explained to you.

Who knows, say somethigns and the you contradict yourself all the time.

Answer yes or no

1 Do you affirm that a fetus is not a person

2 do you affirm that a person is not a human

3 do you afirmt hat the fetus is just a parasite (like a worm)

4 you don’t affirm not reject any of this statements?

1 and 2. A person is defined as a human being, a human being is defined as man woman or child of the species Homo sapiens.

Is a foetus a man woman or child, think carefully now?

3 I have never asserted that a foetus is a parasite, ever.

4 Read my responses, for once.

Why isn’t a fetus a member of the human species, this is not even a controversial even among pro choice people

I have never ever claimed it was not, you simply have an execrable grasp of language.

Some evidence (with a source) that you will obviously ignore

It's not evidence, it is a moral argument, if you had bothered to read it. Now refresh my memory, but aren't moral opinions subjective?

 

[Sheldon]

The fact that you dotn want to define
“bodily autonomy”v (nor evidence) is very telling.

Indeed, I long ago tired of being a first grade English teacher to you, the fact you don't know what it means in a debate where it is a central concern is far more telling though.

Of course you won’t provide definitions because you know that you will end up in an indefensible position

So you being ignorant of simple word definitions, that define a central and essential part of the argument for abortion, in a debate you started about abortion, and you think this makes my position indefensible? That is hilarious...

An other statement where you implied that the fetus is not a human,

Implied? I have taken great pains to explain the many differences between a man woman or child, and an insentient blastocyst or developing foetus.

 

[Sheldon]

You don't abort a child, you abort a fetus. At the level of development where the crippling majority of elective abortion occur, the fetus doesn't have a consciousness, thus no capacity to suffer and be harmed. A baby does possess one and thus can be harmed.

I can't tell whether he is deliberately ignoring such facts, or can't grasp them.

 

[1213]

Fetuses actually are by definition. The word parasite is neutral. That a fetus is one doesn’t necessarily mean that said fetus is evil or anything. It’s just a biological entity that lives inside of another’s body and uses the same nutrients/food/etc of said body. That’s quite literally the definition of parasite

Ok, if we accept that and the idea that the "fetus" is woman’s body, then woman is parasite?

 

[Sheldon]

A human fetus is obviously human in nature just like any of your organs are human. What they are not is a person since they do not have a consciousness and thus don't have a personality, the fundamental component of a personhood.

I urged him to look up the definition of person right at the very moment I disputed his labelling a foetus or blastocyst as a person, had he done so, he could have disavowed himself of this erroneous idea, again i can't tell if it is deliberate or not.

Person
noun

a human being regarded as an individual.

A foetus remains part of a woman's body, right up until that umbilical chord is cut.

individual
adjective

single; separate.

Now he's finally done it, and reduced me to his first grade English teacher.

 

[leroy]

epronovost said: ↑
You don't abort a child, you abort a fetus. At the level of development where the crippling majority of elective abortion occur, the fetus doesn't have a consciousness, thus no capacity to suffer and be harmed. A baby does possess one and thus can be harmed.

I can't tell whether he is deliberately ignoring such facts, or can't grasp them.

Wrong in fact I clearly and unambiguously acknowledge and accepted those facts……………..my reply was that the lack of consciences and ability to suffer in this exact moment doesn’t makes you a “non-person” (otherwise a human in coma wouldn’t be a person ether)…………..potential consciousness is enough, the way I see it……if a human will have consciences in the future it shouldn’t be considered a person.

So you accusation of not acknowledging the facts is wrong (an apology is expected)

 

[leroy]

Duly noted, now what has that to do with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and terminating a pregnancy? Only I have read anyone suggest anyone should be allowed to kill innocent people? Do you think endlessly repeating this dishonest hyperbole will sway anyone?

now what has that to do with a woman's right to bodily autonomy

Nothing , because the comment that you are replying to is not intended to deal with "bodily autonomy "


[