Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

And let's say that a woman decides to abort the fetus that came to be as the result of a rape, should she be punished? If yes, how? If not, why not?

It would be absurd to fill the prisons with woman that aborted, after all they usually are not bad persons, and they are not a thread for society, woman abort not knowing that they are doing something wrong.

So I would begging by making abortion illegal then punishing abortion clinics.

But I don’t have “strong views” on this issue …. If there is an Arabic community in your town should we punish “genital mutilation” ? in my opinion abortion is analogous to this,,,,,,,,,,,, both are morally wrong but people who do this stuff are not evil, and think they are doing something “good”…. But my ultimate answer for both questions is …..“I don’t know”

 

[leroy]

A foetus or blastocyst, is not a person, by definition. Since they are insentient, and part of and dependant on a woman's body, and thus not a human individual.

Your previous definition of person doesn’t exclude any of those.

Being insentient and dependent doesn’t makes you a “non person” otherwise a person in comma would be a “non person”

And quite frankly I still don’t understand how a fetus spontaneously becomes a person when he gets out of the womb. It seems to me that you are claiming that personhood is determined by “geographical location”…………does a worm stops being a worm because it is inside a human?

 

[leroy]

I


I do, and that was a subjective moral argument.

based on scientific facts

 

[leroy]

Apples and oranges, since an abortion does not occur after childbirth, with or without the intact umbilical. Is the foetus part of the doctors body and dependant on it? Could the survival of that foetus endanger the doctor? Does the foetus's survival enslave the doctor, and take away their bodily autonomy? Apples are not oranges...you seem to want to pretend that the reason for an abortion, is the same as moral arguments for women have bodily autonomy, but they're not.

The question is: is the doctor killing a person? answer yes or no If the doctor kills a baby before the umbilical cord is cut, would you say that he killed a person?

Point to one question that I did not answer, I dare you.

The above question has not been answered , this is the second time I ask,

Does the foetus's survival enslave the doctor

Irrelevant, the question is if he is killing a person

and take away their bodily autonomy?

Irrelevant, the question is if he is killing a person

 

[leroy]

If a man has sex, then decides they never wanted a child after the woman becomes pregnant, and that new born innocent () baby needs a kidney, and the father is a viable donor, are you happy to pass a law that can strap that man down, anaesthetise him, and remove that kidney, against his will, so that the innocent () baby is not murdered?

Hyperbole is easy, it does not represent sound argument.

This is disanalogous for at least 2 reasons

1 The father is not killing his son, he is simply letting him die (which is horrible but shouldn’t be illegal)……….. there is an important moral difference between killing (abortion) and letting die

2 the woman already donated her womb, a father can´t kill his sun and recover his kidney after the donation was done.

A correct analogy would be a father killing his son to recover the kidney that he already donated.

Even if the father doesn’t want to donate his organs he still doesn’t have the right to kill his son, even if the mother threats the father with a gun such that he doesn’t have any other option but to donate his kidney, he still doesn’t have the right to kill his son. (if anything he would have the right to kill the mother)

 

[Sheldon]

Your previous definition of person doesn’t exclude any of those.

Yes it does, as I explained, multiple times.

Being insentient and dependent doesn’t makes you a “non person” otherwise a person in comma would be a “non person”

I never claimed it did, why do you think removing parts of my argument, and then pretending it's based on the straw man result, is a sound response?

And quite frankly I still don’t understand how a fetus spontaneously becomes a person when he gets out of the womb.

maybe if you read my post properly, rather picking buts of it, and ignoring the rest?

It seems to me that you are claiming that personhood is determined by “geographical location”

I doubt it, at least i hope not, as that would indicate a very poor grasp of English.

does a worm stops being a worm because it is inside a human?

What's your point?

 

[Sheldon]

based on scientific facts

That's a matter of opinion, always the case with subjective arguments, which that was. Species evolution is a scientific fact, therefore in my opinion it is immoral to lie to children by teaching them it is not. See a subjective argument based on scientific facts.

 

[Sheldon]

The question is: is the doctor killing a person? answer yes or no If the doctor kills a baby before the umbilical cord is cut, would you say that he killed a person?

I just answered that:

"Apples and oranges, since an abortion does not occur after childbirth, with or without the intact umbilical. Is the foetus part of the doctors body and dependant on it? Could the survival of that foetus endanger the doctor? Does the foetus's survival enslave the doctor, and take away their bodily autonomy? Apples are not oranges...you seem to want to pretend that the reason for an abortion, is the same as moral arguments for women have bodily autonomy, but they're not."

Point to one question that I did not answer, I dare you.

The above question has not been answered , this is the second time I ask,

Of course it has, you just don't like the answer, quelle surprise. So when you get an answer that disagrees with your position you misrepresent people as not answering, that's preposterous.

Does the foetus's survival enslave the doctor, and take away their bodily autonomy?

Irrelevant, the question is if he is killing a person

Of course it's relevant, you are creating a false equivalence. Again you seem unable to grasp that not everyone thinks as you do, nor do they have to. You have an odd grasp of debate I must say.

 

[Sheldon]

This is disanalogous for at least 2 reasons

What the hell does "disanalogous" (sic) mean?

1 The father is not killing his son, he is simply letting him die (which is horrible but shouldn’t be illegal)……….. there is an important moral difference between killing (abortion) and letting die

I disagree, perhaps you could explain it?

2 the woman already donated her womb, a father can´t kill his sun and recover his kidney after the donation was done.

A woman donates nothing, sex is not a promise to procreate.

A correct analogy would be a father killing his son to recover the kidney that he already donated.

Hardly, the son is not part of the father's body, thus his survival is not dependant being part of the father's body. The son is also sentient, and can suffer his own death, whereas a foetus or blastocyst cannot. The son is an autonomous individual, the foetus or blastocyst is not. The father need not be enslaved or lose bodily autonomy, in order for the son to survive. The survival of the son poses no physical or emotional risk of harm to the father etc etc etc...

Even if the father doesn’t want to donate his organs he still doesn’t have the right to kill his son,

Whoever said he did?

 

[leroy]

Yes it does, as I explained, multiple times.[

No, you are avoiding the question

I never claimed it did, why do you think removing parts of my argument, and then pretending it's based on the straw man result, is a sound response?

Well then stop being ambigous

What makes a fetus a non-person?

Being dependent, being connected, being inside the woman, being unconscious? The combination of everything? ………… you wont answer because you know that any clear answer would drop your argument

maybe if you read my post properly, rather picking buts of it, and ignoring the rest?

Then stop being ambiguous

What's your point?

being inside organism "X" doesnt make you part of this organism

 

[leroy]

I just answered that:

"Apples and oranges, since an abortion does not occur after childbirth, with or without the intact umbilical. Is the foetus part of the doctors body and dependant on it? Could the survival of that foetus endanger the doctor? Does the foetus's survival enslave the doctor, and take away their bodily autonomy? Apples are not oranges...you seem to want to pretend that the reason for an abortion, is the same as moral arguments for women have bodily autonomy, but they're not."

No you are dishonestly avoiding the question………. I did not ask if the doctor has the righ to kill it, I didn’t ask anything related to bodily autonomy, I didn’t ask if the fetus is harming the doctor.

I asked is the new born a person before cutting the umbilical cord?


This is the 3rth time I ask and you are still refusing to answer this is a yes or no question

 

[Koldo]

It would be absurd to fill the prisons with woman that aborted, after all they usually are not bad persons, and they are not a thread for society, woman abort not knowing that they are doing something wrong.

So I would begging by making abortion illegal then punishing abortion clinics.

But I don’t have “strong views” on this issue …. If there is an Arabic community in your town should we punish “genital mutilation” ? in my opinion abortion is analogous to this,,,,,,,,,,,, both are morally wrong but people who do this stuff are not evil, and think they are doing something “good”…. But my ultimate answer for both questions is …..“I don’t know”

Ok. Let's say we decide not to punish the women but rather the abortion clinics and that all of them go out of business to the point women that have been raped won't be able to abort.

Can you imagine what it is like to have to endure this sort of pregnancy? Can you imagine what it would be like if it happened to your wife or daughter?

 

[leroy]

Of course it has, you just don't like the answer, quelle surprise. So when you get an answer that disagrees with your position you misrepresent people as not answering, that's preposterous.

The problem is that you are not answering the question, if you answer NO to the question (about the doctor and the umbilical cord) I would dislike your answer, but I could no longer accuse you for not answering

Of course it's relevant, you are creating a false equivalence. Again you seem unable to grasp that not everyone thinks as you do, nor do they have to. You have an odd grasp of debate I must say.

Wrong, I am not trying to make equivalence, I am not saying that a doctor killign the baby is equivalent to abort………………..I am just asking if the new born baby is a person before cutting the umbilical cord………………..and you are refusing to answer this question because you know that a “NO” would be ridiculous and a YES would force you that you made a mistake (by claiming that the baby is not a person because it´s connected to the mother.

You can admit that you are wrong, admit that the fetus is a person and still be “pro choice” you still have your bodily autonomy argument

 

[leroy]

Can you imagine what it is like to have to endure this sort of pregnancy? Can you imagine what it would be like if it happened to your wife or daughter?

It would be somethign horrible ...


But aborting doesn’t solve the problem (the damage of rape would still be there)… dealing with a baby is much harder than dealing with a pregnancy but still you wouldn’t support killing the baby……….so if the fetus is a person I don’t see why would it be different

 

[Sheldon]

No you are dishonestly avoiding the question………. I did not ask if the doctor has the righ to kill it, I didn’t ask anything related to bodily autonomy, I didn’t ask if the fetus is harming the doctor.

Yes I read it, you ignored all relevant context and posed a question that is a false equivalence, then laughably insisted I give you a YES or NO answer. However I have answered, and offered context and explanation for that answer. No matter how much you dishonestly claim otherwise.

I asked is the new born a person before cutting the umbilical cord?

Well I can only offer a subjective opinion, but I'd say yes, since it has been born, would likely be sentient, and no longer needed to be part of the woman's body. That's why the lungs start after birth.

This is the 3rth time I ask and you are still refusing to answer this is a yes or no question

I have answered each time, and no it is not a yes no question, since it is a false equivalence.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

YOU MUST answer yes or no....

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that you are not answering the question, if you answer NO to the question (about the doctor and the umbilical cord) I would dislike your answer, but I could no longer accuse you for not answering

Oh I see, you created a false dichotomy based on a false equivalence, and are not happy because I won't play along?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

YOU MUST answer yes or no.

 

[Sheldon]

Wrong, I am not trying to make equivalence,

I know that, it is a false equivalence, which is why I said in each of my answers that you were creating a false equivalence.

 

[Sheldon]

You can admit that you are wrong, admit that the fetus is a person and still be “pro choice” you still have your bodily autonomy argument

You can admit you are wrong, and still be anti-choice, what's your point?

 

[Sheldon]

It would be somethign horrible ...


But aborting doesn’t solve the problem (the damage of rape would still be there)…

That is not for you to say is it, until it is you who has been impregnated by a rapist.

dealing with a baby is much harder than dealing with a pregnancy but still you wouldn’t support killing the baby……….

A foetus or blastocyst is not a baby, and no one is advocating killing a baby, and many posters have take a deal of time to explain why they would be different.

so if the fetus is a person I don’t see why would it be different

You could read some of that many many reasons others have posted, in this thread?

 

[Koldo]

Except it's not an individual person, as it is insentient, attached to and part of the woman's body, and entirely reliant on being a part of it.

You probably meant invididual human, rather individual person, right?
Just because you consider those factors to disqualify the fetus as an individual human doesn't mean that others must agree with you. That's just how you personally use the term.

That's disingenuous, as I am not expressing a personal opinion, only using accurate descriptions, why would I care if a dictionary defines a foetus as a person or not, it just so happens it does not.

I disagree. You are not merely bringing up a fact, but also your personal opinion on how to interpret what the dictionary is stating. What the dictionary states and what you interpret it to say are two different things.

Another bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

As I have already stated, definitions are descriptive rather than prescritive. The fallacy you mentioned is not applicable here.

I didn't right the dictionary, but as I said they reflect common usage, so when arguing semantics the dictionary is the reference tool that explains what most people understand a word to mean.

Except we are both disagreeing on how to interpret what most people understand this word to mean. Not to mention that not even a majority is required for a word to have any given meaning.

Well there you go, your claim for what "most people" think a person describes is contradicted by the dictionary.

Nope. I am claiming you are misinterpreting what the dictionary is stating.

It also has the mothers DNA, and again a toenail clipping has distinct DNA, this doesn't make it a person. it is not a separate individual as I pointed out.

Distinct DNA from what?

Straw man, since I never claimed that alone did.

The fetus is immunologically tolerated by the pregnant organism. It is directly and topologically connected to the rest of the maternal organism via umbilical cord and placenta, which is composed of fetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two. The fetus is physiologically integrated into the pregnant organism, and regulated as part of one metabolic system. Jointly these pose a very strong case. Note that all of these change radically at birth: the baby is no longer topologically connected (and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded); the baby is now its own physiological, homeostatic and metabolic unit (although still heavily dependent on maternal care/provision and care); and it is no longer in direct contact with the maternal immune system. It also remains insentient until after birth.

At the same time I certainly don’t to find any good arguments in favour of the view that the fetus isn’t a part; the position tends to be assumed, but not argued for.

You have not shown that any of those biological facts, neither alone nor together, are sufficient to establish that the fetus is part of the woman's body.

You are setting up your very own criteria and claiming to have met them all. Sure, but they are yours and not mine, and therefore I have no reason to agree with you.