Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

Why are you still hung on this whole "person" thingy?

It matters not if it's a person or not.
What matters is bodily autonomy.

What matters is leeching off of a person's body without their permission.
You can't take possession of someone's kidneys without their permission (not even after they died, if they explicitly said that you can't) so you also can't take possession of a uterus. Or "borrow" it.

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a person or not.

Once you donated your kidney, you can´t kill the beneficiary and recover your kidneys. …

You are not obligated to donate your kidneys nor borrow your womb, but once you made the donation (even if against your will) you can’t change your mind and kill the beneficiary (especially if he is innocent and not guilty of this injustice)

What matters is bodily autonomy.

You can do whatever you want with your own body as long as you don’t harm (let alone kill) someone else……….. this is an ethical principle that we all follow on a daily basis, …. For example a terrorist can’t claim “bodily autonomy” and detonate a bomb that was previously in his body………so why making an arbitrary exception with pregnant woman?

What is wrong with following this ethical principle and apply it to everybody?

“You can do whatever you want with your own body as long as you don’t harm (let alone kill) someone else”


Why should we make an arbitrary exception with pregnant woman?


If you are in a lake and a baby is hugging you (because he can’t swim) do you have the right to claim “bodily autonomy” and kill him? (killing is different form letting die)

Now assume that the baby is in the lake because of you…(you grabbed the baby and took him in to the lake) ….. you created this state of dependency where the baby needs your body to survive)……….do you have the right to kill the baby? If you answer no then Why is this different from aborting?

 

[leroy]

Anything dependant on persons blood supply or nervous system is part of that person with the possible exception of a symbiont. even a cancer is part of a person, unwelcome certainly but intrinsically part of that person. a developing egg is part of that person, whether fertilised or not. it only ceases to be part of that person when expelled to become an independent life.

finger nail is indisputably part of a person. But a nail clipping is not. interestingly nails continue to grow after a persons death. Does that mean that they have a life of their own? of course not. they are still dependent on that dead person for sustenance.

Really? So if I where currently depending on your blood supply for some medical procedure, would I stop being a person? Would I become part of you?

 

[leroy]

You have said it was worse to deal with a baby than with a pregnancy. I have replied that you can right away give your baby right away if that is what you want, but there is no such alternative to pregnancy. When it comes down to pregnancy, depending on how far off you are, you have to kill the fetus to get rid of it.

Well my point is that you can´t give away your unwanted child just like that. at the very least you need a few weeks or months of paper work, tests and that kind of stuff…………….but still you don’t have the right to kill the baby just because you don’t want to wait for a few weeks.

So both the pregnant woman and the woman that wants to get rid of her child are “enslaved” by his son…….. so why one has the right to kill him and the other not?

 

[Sheldon]

why are "placenta and umbilical cord are discarded);" (this are your words)

I imagine they've served their purpose, and they're not much use after the birth. Is there some relevance?

 

[Sheldon]

Really? So if I where currently depending on your blood supply for some medical procedure, would I stop being a person? Would I become part of you?

Are you sentient, were you ever sentient, are you attached to and part of a woman's body, are you sharing an immune system, and a metabolism, are you receiving nutrition and oxygen through a woman's blood, are you inside the body of a woman etc etc etc.

You seem to think you can knock all these facts over one a time like skittles, which is just facile reasoning.

 

[Koldo]

Well my point is that you can´t give away your unwanted child just like that. at the very least you need a few weeks or months of paper work, tests and that kind of stuff…………….but still you don’t have the right to kill the baby just because you don’t want to wait for a few weeks.

So both the pregnant woman and the woman that wants to get rid of her child are “enslaved” by his son…….. so why one has the right to kill him and the other not?

Because the other one can leave the baby in front of any hospital. The barrier to do that, when it exists, is merely legal, and not physical. When it comes down to pregnancy though, there is no way to leave the fetus anywhere.

 

[ppp]

way ourt

Well my point is that you can´t give away your unwanted child just like that. at the very least you need a few weeks or months of paper work, tests and that kind of stuff…………….but still you don’t have the right to kill the baby just because you don’t want to wait for a few weeks.

So both the pregnant woman and the woman that wants to get rid of her child are “enslaved” by his son…….. so why one has the right to kill him and the other not?

Despite your inaccuracies, bodily rights.

 

[Sheldon]

Well my point is that you can´t give away your unwanted child just like that. at the very least you need a few weeks or months of paper work, tests and that kind of stuff…………….but still you don’t have the right to kill the baby just because you don’t want to wait for a few weeks.

So both the pregnant woman and the woman that wants to get rid of her child are “enslaved” by his son…….. so why one has the right to kill him and the other not?

A woman with a child is not enslaved, she still has bodily autonomy. She has the choice to give birth so no one is taking away her bodily autonomy. Denying a pregnant woman who does not want to carry a pregnancy through gestation and forcing her to give birth, that is enslaving her, as it takes away her bodily autonomy. They're very different scenarios.

 

[leroy]

I imagine they've served their purpose, and they're not much use after the birth. Is there some relevance?

Seems arbitrary………….a useful connection makes it part of her body …. But if the concocting is useless you are an individual?

Being an individual is grounded on “not having useful connections”? /where do you draw the line? Lets say that the connection is useful but not indispensable? Let’s say that only has a minor benefit? Where do you draw the line?


The problem is that you want to affirm that a fetus is not a person and that a new born is a person, which results in absurdities. Ether both are persons or none is a person...........

 

[leroy]

Are you sentient, were you ever sentient, are you attached to and part of a woman's body, are you sharing an immune system, and a metabolism, are you receiving nutrition and oxygen through a woman's blood, are you inside the body of a woman etc etc etc.

You seem to think you can knock all these facts over one a time like skittles, which is just facile reasoning.

Are you sentient

No, in this example I am in comma, therefore not sentiant

were you ever sentient,

YES but so what? Are you presenting a new argument?............does “past sentience” proves individuality or personhood?....

are you attached to and part of a woman's body

Circular reasoning, that is exactly what you are supposed to show. (that I am part of her bodey)

are you sharing an immune system, and a metabolism, are you receiving nutrition and oxygen through a woman's blood, are you inside the body of a woman etc etc etc.

Lets say that yes, that I am sharing all that stuff…………..let’s say that it is physically possible for me to go inside her body … would I stop being a person?

 

[leroy]

Because the other one can leave the baby in front of any hospital. The barrier to do that, when it exists, is merely legal, and not physical. When it comes down to pregnancy though, there is no way to leave the fetus anywhere.

Well if it´s illegal to drop your son in the hospital … why wouldn’t abortion be illegal?..... if the fetus is a person then abortion would be a much greater crime than living the child in the hospital.

 

[leroy]

A woman with a child is not enslaved, she still has bodily autonomy. She has the choice to give birth so no one is taking away her bodily autonomy. Denying a pregnant woman who does not want to carry a pregnancy through gestation and forcing her to give birth, that is enslaving her, as it takes away her bodily autonomy. They're very different scenarios.

What do you mean by “enslave” why isn’t forcing a woman to take care of the child until the foster family comes in “enslavement”

Both woman have to do thing s against their will, both have to take care and deal with an unwanted person, both have to wait for a few weeks or months to become “free” so ether both are enslavement or none is. (depending on how you define slavery)

 

[Koldo]

Well if it´s illegal to drop your son in the hospital … why wouldn’t abortion be illegal?..... if the fetus is a person then abortion would be a much greater crime than living the child in the hospital.

Because no right is inherently supreme.
Does the right to life trump over all others?
For instance, do you think that you and everyone else be forced to pay for, no matter the cost, whatever medical procedure and medication is necessary to keep us all alive?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Really? So if I where currently depending on your blood supply for some medical procedure, would I stop being a person? Would I become part of you?

No need to be absurd.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well my point is that you can´t give away your unwanted child just like that. at the very least you need a few weeks or months of paper work, tests and that kind of stuff…………….but still you don’t have the right to kill the baby just because you don’t want to wait for a few weeks.

So both the pregnant woman and the woman that wants to get rid of her child are “enslaved” by his son…….. so why one has the right to kill him and the other not?

An abortion is not the same as infanticide.
Though Infanticide has been the norm in many societies.

 

[Sheldon]

Seems arbitrary………….a useful connection makes it part of her body …. But if the concocting is useless you are an individual?

Not even remotely what I said, again you are simply making up nonsense, and assigning it to me.

Being an individual is grounded on “not having useful connections”?

Straw man number 2.

The problem is that you want to affirm that a fetus is not a person and that a new born is a person, which results in absurdities.

No it doesn't, the absurdities are all straw men you are concocting.

Ether both are persons or none is a person...........

False dichotomy fallacy, it seems you want to use logical fallacies rather than honestly address what I posted. Again stop ignoring my answers and taking one point in isolation to create these ludicrous straw men.

One assumes you accept that a person is defined as a single individual human?

So your argument is claiming that a foetus is a single individual human being. So as well as the evidence I posted showing clearly that a foetus is not an individual but part of a woman's body, a human being is also described as as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Which it clearly is not.

You have not address the evidence I presented it is part of woman's body, as I said, you just keep taking a single point out of context and creating straw men fallacies. Go back read all the evidence, and some of which you have not addressed at all.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you sentient, were you ever sentient, are you attached to and part of a woman's body, are you sharing an immune system, and a metabolism, are you receiving nutrition and oxygen through a woman's blood, are you inside the body of a woman etc etc etc.

You seem to think you can knock all these facts over one a time like skittles, which is just facile reasoning.

No, in this example I am in comma, therefore not sentiant

YES but so what? Are you presenting a new argument?............does “past sentience” proves individuality or personhood?....

Of course the fact you are a sentient person who happens to be in coma differs in all the ways I explained from a foetus. Again you have ignored it entirely and focused in one point you think you can beat, which you haven't even addressed anyway, just waved away. You either don't know what sentient means, or are incapable of understanding the consequences of it, even for someone in a coma, but I'm not spoon feeding it to you, as you are not interested in debate, just endlessly repeating your denials.

Circular reasoning, that is exactly what you are supposed to show. (that I am part of her bodey)

It's not circular, the objective evidence has been listed multiple times, most of it you have yet to even acknowledge.

Lets say that yes, that I am sharing all that stuff…………..let’s say that it is physically possible for me to go inside her body … would I stop being a person?

Why, why deal in straw man hypotheticals isolating single points? Address all the evidence, and do it honestly. You can't do so, that much is clear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most fetus do not put the woman’s life at risk…..in the cases where the life of the woman is at risk, abortion would be justified.

Every pregnancy is a risk to the life of the pregnant person.

*with risk I mean that there is a reasonable high probability that the mother would die.

So by "risk," you don't actually mean "risk"?

 

[Sheldon]

No need to be absurd.

@leroy has tried every other logical fallacy in this thread, why not reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Sheldon]

What do you mean by “enslave” why isn’t forcing a woman to take care of the child until the foster family comes in “enslavement”

Another non sequitur, since no one is forcing anyone to do this.

Both woman have to do thing s against their will,

No they don't, you and your anti choice ilk, want to force a pregnant woman to go through gestation and childbirth against her will, in favour of bestowing rights on an insentient blastocyst or foetus that is part of her own body. Where have I suggested a woman should be forced to raise a child? Why would a woman need to be forced if she had bodily autonomy to terminate a pregnancy in the first place?

both have to take care and deal with an unwanted person,

Neither a blastocyst nor a foetus is a person, address the reasons already offered.

both have to wait for a few weeks or months to become “free” so ether both are enslavement or none is. (depending on how you define slavery)

That's a false dichotomy.