Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Sheldon]

Maybe, but since your answers are so ambiguous I have no idea what your actual answer is

They were not at all ambiguous. I suggest you re-read them.

 

[leroy]

Why do you keep demanding what people should do? You have no say what other people post on a public debate forum. I never introduced rape into the discussion, but anyone who deny a woman who was raped an abortion clearly has no moral misgivings about the suffering of any woman, and little empathy as well, obviously.

Ok so no disagreement from your part,…………… rape is irrelevant…………, you claim that abortion is ok regardless if its rape or not, and I claim that abortion is bad, regardless if it´s rape or not

So we both agree that rape is not relevant and nothing changes weather if it´s consensual sex or rape our positions are the same

 

[leroy]

I already gave an expansive answer, explaining the false equivalence, you dismissed my objections as irrelevant, as I will now do to yours, so have you or have you not stopped beating your wife? yes or no only please.

Again, my intent was not to make an equivalence, you are refuting a strawman,

So is baby a person before cutting the umbilical cord? Yes or no?

o have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?

The answer is NO.

The only problem with that answer is that it gives the impression that I beat my wife in the past. But that is not necessarily the case.

Happy

Now will you ever answer to my question ?

 

[Revoltingest]

How is debate unproductive, in a public debate forum?

Some debates are just arguing past each other.
That's what I saw. Discussion is better cuz no
one has to lose.

 

[leroy]

Yet you did, so not irrelevant then, in fact entirely salient to this debate, as it is a false equivalence. I already explained why, handwaving isn't going to make me change my mind.

Ok you were right and I was wrong.

A doctor killing a baby is not equivalent to aborting . I was wrong in this point.

So with that specific topic closed, I have a different and unrelated question.

Is a new born a person before cutting the umbilical cord?

 

[Sheldon]

So we both agree that rape is not relevant

We do?

The point that I made is that “rape” is irrelevant.

Not to a woman who has been raped, obviously.

I think you are dealing with the issue of rape in a facile way, that doesn't acknowledge the trauma of the victim, so no, I don't think we are in agreement that "rape is irrelevant".

As far as abortion is concerned the motives for seeking a termination are none of my business. That doesn't mean they are irrelevant to a woman seeking a termination.

 

[Sheldon]

Some debates are just arguing past each other.
That's what I saw. Discussion is better cuz no
one has to lose.

All debate involve argument, that is how debate is defined.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok you were right and I was wrong.

A doctor killing a baby is not equivalent to aborting . I was wrong in this point.

So with that specific topic closed, I have a different and unrelated question.

Is a new born a person before cutting the umbilical cord?

I would say it probably is, since that umbilical chord has become redundant, and the baby, unlike the foetus, is not dependant on being part of the woman's body.

 

[leroy]

No indeed, but of course one need not pay any attention to how someone thinks a woman should feel about being raped, especially if they are dismissing how they feel about being raped as "irrelevant". Which was of course the ocntext of my reply.

It´s irrelevant in the discussion on weather if abortion is morally wrong or not.



I

 

[leroy]

They were not at all ambiguous. I suggest you re-read them.

Ok they were ambiguous for me, I take the blame, I am bad in understanding stuff, that is why I am asking (as a favor) to provide direct answers.

What makes a fetus a non-person?

The inability to suffer, the lack of consciousness, being inside the womb, being connected to the mother through an umbilical cord? The combination of all the factors?

 

[leroy]

I would say it probably is, since that umbilical chord has become redundant, and the baby, unlike the foetus, is not dependant on being part of the woman's body.

Well it seems to me that you are once more saying that “dependency on the mother”is what makes a fetus a non-human……………….but it seems to me that you have also said that this is not true and that you never made that claim.

So which one is it? Where is my mistake in understanding your view?...........

Note that this is a different question……………..I appreciate your clear and direct answer for the previous question

 

[leroy]

As far as abortion is concerned the motives for seeking a termination are none of my business. T.

That s my point, you claim that woman have the right to abort, regardless if the woman was rape or not.

I claim that women shouldn’t have the right to abort regardless if it was rape or not.

So we agree on that rape is irrelevant for determining the right to abort.

 

[Sheldon]

It´s irrelevant in the discussion on weather if abortion is morally wrong or not.

Whether, and again it is relevant to a woman who has been raped. I already said a woman's reasons for seeking a termination are no one else's business. However it is pertinent to the lack of empathy to any woman's suffering such assertions are. It is ironic that people can spare empathy and angst for an insentient blastocyst or foetus, that cannot suffer its own termination in any meaningful way, while being dismissive of the obvious pain and trauma of a rape victim as irrelevant in a rather facile and callous way. Even suggesting a "nothing would be solved" by a rape victim seeking a termination.

 

[Sheldon]

What makes a fetus a non-person?

Same as before a person is defined as a human being regarded as an individual. As I have explained exhaustively, a foetus is part of a woman's body. Note this is not an argument for a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I merely disagree that an insentient foetus or blastocyst is a single induvial, I have explained my rationale for holding that positions enough times by now I think.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
I would say it probably is, since that umbilical chord has become redundant, and the baby, unlike the foetus, is not dependant on being part of the woman's body.

Well it seems to me that you are once more saying that “dependency on the mother”is what makes a fetus a non-human

Seriously, again you read part of a single sentence?

I have never said it is a non-human actually, that is your wording, you claimed a foetus is a person, and I disagreed, and offered my rationale. Why you still feel the urge to pick single points out in isolation, and offer them as if they represent my sole rationale is unclear, but it is very disingenuous.

 

[Sheldon]

So we agree on that rape is irrelevant for determining the right to abort.

I can't make my position on this any clearer I think, but that quote is yours and yours alone. I reiterate for clarity, a woman's reasons for seeking a termination are no one else's business.

 

[ppp]

So we agree on that rape is irrelevant for determining the right to abort.

I can't make my position on this any clearer I think, but that quote is yours and yours alone. I reiterate for clarity, a woman's reasons for seeking a termination are no one else's business.

Sheldon said, "...a woman's reasons for seeking a termination are no one else's business."

 

[leroy]

Same as before a person is defined as a human being regarded as an individual. As I have explained exhaustively, a foetus is part of a woman's body. Note this is not an argument for a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I merely disagree that an insentient foetus or blastocyst is a single induvial, I have explained my rationale for holding that positions enough times by now I think.

Ok but what’s makes a “thing” to part of a woman’s body ?

Anything that is inside the woman is part of her body?

Anything that is connected to the woman is part of the woman

Anything that is fully dependent on a woman´s body?

The combination of everything?

Something else?

What is your criteria?

 

[leroy]

Seriously, again you read part of a single sentence?

I have never said it is a non-human actually, that is your wording, you claimed a foetus is a person, and I disagreed, and offered my rationale. Why you still feel the urge to pick single points out in isolation, and offer them as if they represent my sole rationale is unclear, but it is very disingenuous.

ok

What does it mean to be part of a womans body?

Being connected to her?, being inside her?ether one or the other, both ? somethig else?

You already said that intestine worms are not part of the woman’s body … so how do you reconcile that claim with the claim that the fetus is part the woman’s body?.........again what is your criteria?

 

[Sheldon]

Ok but what’s makes a “thing” to part of a woman’s body ?

Anything that is inside the woman is part of her body?

Anything that is connected to the woman is part of the woman

Anything that is fully dependent on a woman´s body?

The combination of everything?

Something else?

What is your criteria?

Already answered multiple times? The same answer each time as well? Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over then ignoring the answers?