Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Sheldon]

Well if it´s illegal to drop your son in the hospital … why wouldn’t abortion be illegal?.....

Obviously because one involves a sentient child, and the other does not.

 

[KWED]

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?

An entirely fallacious argument comparing dissimilar positions.
One is about whether or not to bring an unwanted child into an already overpopulated world where infant care systems are inadequate, by a mother unable to care for the child sufficiently.
The other is about paternal financial responsibility for a wanted child that has been born and is being looked after by a willing mother.

If you want a valid position, how about - any "pro-lifer" who has not already adopted an unwanted child can keep their hypocritical opinions to themselves?
How many have you adopted?

 

[leroy]

An entirely fallacious argument comparing dissimilar positions.
One is about whether or not to bring an unwanted child into an already overpopulated world where infant care systems are inadequate, by a mother unable to care for the child sufficiently.
The other is about paternal financial responsibility for a wanted child that has been born and is being looked after by a willing mother.


If you want a valid position, how about - any "pro-lifer" who has not already adopted an unwanted child can keep their hypocritical opinions to themselves?
How many have you adopted?

Very interesting points, but you did not answer to the OP.

The question being

¿Should fathers have the right to “decide no to be parents” and avid financial support for his unwanted child?

In this scenario the mother can ether abort or give the child in to adoption, at this point the mother knows that the man will not take care of the child and will not provide any support.

If the mother decides to give birth and keep her son, does she have the right to force the man to provide financial support?

 

[leroy]

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.

I did provide arguments and I take for granted that you accept those arguments. (unless you correct on a particular argument and affirm the)

My reply is

1 Being inside X doesn’t makes you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

2 Being connected to X doesn’t makes you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

3 Being depended on X doesn’t makes you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

4 Sharing stuff with X doesn’t makes you part of X ((you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

5 Being insentient doesn’t make you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

6 Having all 5 points together doesn’t makes part of X (for example intestine worms are not part of your body) (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

(am I missing a relevant criteria?)

Therefore a fetus is not part of the woman. Given that you accept all these points you should accept this conclusion,

Please tell me exactly at what point does my reply fail?


In other words.

If I connect you to my body (because I am a crazy scientists that what’s to do a weird experiment) you will still be a person.

If you become dependent on me, you will still be a person

If I know you out such that at this moment you are unconscious and can’t feel pain nor suffer, you will still be a person

If you happen to share some of my organs (again part of the experiment) you will still be a person.

If I change my mind and decide that I don’t want to do the experiment anymore, you will still be a person and I would have no right to kill you.

Do you disagree with anything

But If I kill you will no longer be a person because at this point you don’t have (and won’t have) consciences )

 

[Koldo]

An entirely fallacious argument comparing dissimilar positions.
One is about whether or not to bring an unwanted child into an already overpopulated world where infant care systems are inadequate, by a mother unable to care for the child sufficiently.
The other is about paternal financial responsibility for a wanted child that has been born and is being looked after by a willing mother.

You are creating a strawman to attack his line of reasoning though.
The words 'unwanted', 'unable to care' and 'wanted' are not part of that post.

 

[leroy]

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

reduction ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. (I assume is an honest mistake and that you meant something else)

but let’s see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit your mistake,.

 

[leroy]

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



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?



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



That's a false dichotomy.

Again you do this all the time / if you are going to answer to a comment you have to understand the context and reply accordingly. If you are not going to this then what is the point of quoting my comment?

In the context of the post that you are replying to, we are assuming that the fetus is a person.

The claim is

If the fetus is a person, aborting would be “Worst” than abandoning a child in the hospital. So ether agree or refute this claim (that presupposes that the fetus is a person)

You you can say ether

1 Yes I agree if the fetus is a person then aborting would be worst than droping a child iin the hospital (but I don’t accept the assumption of the fetus being a person)

2 No I disagree even if the fetus is a person, aborting would still be ok unlike abandoning a child in a hospital (and justify you reasons for making this argument)

3 I disagree the mother has the right to do both abort or abandon the child,

Remember in this context we are assuming that the fetus is a person, so which option do you pick?

 

[Sheldon]

Should fathers have the right to “decide no to be parents” and avid financial support for his unwanted child?

They can, no man has to get a woman pregnant, they already have a choice. That choice ends at conception, then it is a woman's body, and must becomes here choice, unless we want to enslave women by removing their bodily autonomy, which I do not, and you earlier made it clear you wouldn't want your own bodily autonomy removed.

 

[Sheldon]

I did provide arguments and I take for granted that you accept those arguments. (unless you correct on a particular argument and affirm the)

My reply is

1 Being inside X doesn’t makes you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

2 Being connected to X doesn’t makes you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

3 Being depended on X doesn’t makes you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

4 Sharing stuff with X doesn’t makes you part of X ((you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

5 Being insentient doesn’t make you part of X (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

6 Having all 5 points together doesn’t makes part of X (for example intestine worms are not part of your body) (you seem to agree with this point, please correct me if you affirm the opposite)

(am I missing a relevant criteria?)

Therefore a fetus is not part of the woman. Given that you accept all these points you should accept this conclusion,

Please tell me exactly at what point does my reply fail?


In other words.

If I connect you to my body (because I am a crazy scientists that what’s to do a weird experiment) you will still be a person.

If you become dependent on me, you will still be a person

If I know you out such that at this moment you are unconscious and can’t feel pain nor suffer, you will still be a person

If you happen to share some of my organs (again part of the experiment) you will still be a person.

If I change my mind and decide that I don’t want to do the experiment anymore, you will still be a person and I would have no right to kill you.

Do you disagree with anything

But If I kill you will no longer be a person because at this point you don’t have (and won’t have) consciences )

I presented evidence to demonstrate why a foetus or blastocyst is part of a woman's body, why would you think I would agree with your bare denials of that evidence?

You have offered no argument that refutes the evidence, just facile irrelevant analogies and bare denials.

The blastocyst, and later the foetus are attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, they share an immune system, and a metabolism, and of course the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

You have yet to deal with the evidence, only mentioning isolated parts, and using a false equivalence.

 

[Sheldon]

Again you do this all the time / if you are going to answer to a comment you have to understand the context and reply accordingly. If you are not going to this then what is the point of quoting my comment?

He said, without context, and without quoting anything for relevance.

In the context of the post that you are replying to, we are assuming that the fetus is a person.

You, not we, I assume nothing of the sort, I have pointed out that the definition of a person as a single individual human being, refutes this assumption.

The claim is

If the fetus is a person, aborting would be “Worst” than abandoning a child in the hospital. So ether agree or refute this claim (that presupposes that the fetus is a person)

Well worse is pretty vague here, and sounds like a subjective opinion, but I don't accept a foetus is a person, and have offered evidence to support this position, but that fact notwithstanding, I don't accept your conclusions either, since a baby is sentient and can suffer, and there is no evidence a blastocyst or foetus can suffer, since it is insentient, and lacks the physiology to feel physical or emotional pain.

You you can say ether

I don't need you to tell me what I can say.

Remember in this context we are assuming that the fetus is a person, so which option do you pick?

None of them, again I am capable reasoning my conclusion without your straw man dictates. I have stated enough times that I don't accept your assumption, and have presented the evidence for this. Here it is again then:

The blastocyst, and later the foetus are attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, they share an immune system, and a metabolism, and of course the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

 

[Sheldon]

reduction ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. (I assume is an honest mistake and that you meant something else)

but let’s see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit your mistake,.

The reductio ad absurdum fallacy is similar to the straw person fallacy.

Though generally not considered fallacious, it can be used to create an invalid conclusion.

And I don't need lectures in intellectual honesty from you, of all people.

 

[Koldo]

They can, no man has to get a woman pregnant, they already have a choice. That choice ends at conception, then it is a woman's body, and must becomes here choice, unless we want to enslave women by removing their bodily autonomy, which I do not, and you earlier made it clear you wouldn't want your own bodily autonomy removed.

If you are talking about the financial support, there is no reason why that choice must be tied to the sex itself. By this I mean that the mere fact of having sex with someone doesn't necessarily entail that the person in question has chosen to have a child with that person, and therefore to financially support that child. There is no reason why those things must be tied to each other. Emphasis on 'must'.

 

[Koldo]

Again you do this all the time / if you are going to answer to a comment you have to understand the context and reply accordingly. If you are not going to this then what is the point of quoting my comment?

In the context of the post that you are replying to, we are assuming that the fetus is a person.

The claim is

If the fetus is a person, aborting would be “Worst” than abandoning a child in the hospital. So ether agree or refute this claim (that presupposes that the fetus is a person)

You you can say ether

1 Yes I agree if the fetus is a person then aborting would be worst than droping a child iin the hospital (but I don’t accept the assumption of the fetus being a person)

2 No I disagree even if the fetus is a person, aborting would still be ok unlike abandoning a child in a hospital (and justify you reasons for making this argument)

3 I disagree the mother has the right to do both abort or abandon the child,

Remember in this context we are assuming that the fetus is a person, so which option do you pick?

I still would like to know if you believe that the right to life trumps over all others.

 

[Sheldon]

If you are talking about the financial support, there is no reason why that choice must be tied to the sex itself. By this I mean that the mere fact of having sex with someone doesn't necessarily entail that the person in question has chosen to have a child with that person, and therefore to financially support that child. There is no reason why those things must be tied to each other. Emphasis on 'must'.

Of course it may not have been a man or a woman's intention to conceive, however to allow a man to relinquish financial responsibility would be morally wrong, also how would you ever establish a man was not fathering children intentionally and then moving on?

I'm not sure about paternity law in the US, but I'm pretty sure in the UK it wouldn't fly to simply assert it was unplanned. A man has a choice not to impregnate a woman, but we cannot claim afterward it was not what we intended, that ship has sailed, since our choices are before conception. Personally I think that is a reasonable and moral position.

Otherwise one would have to accept that the financial burden should be shared by everyone else, so that a man can walk away from the consequences, that doesn't seem right.

 

[Koldo]

Of course it may not have been a man or a woman's intention to conceive, however to allow a man to relinquish financial responsibility would be morally wrong,

According to whom? To many, abortion itself is morally wrong, but stating so doesn't convince anyone.

also how would you ever establish a man was not feathering children intentionally and then moving on?

This sounds like 'what if hetero males get into female bathrooms, pretendending to be trans, just to rape women'?
I mean, sure, that's possible, but how likely is it? What's even the major benefit in doing it?

I'm not sure about paternity law in the US, but I'm pretty sure in the UK it wouldn't fly to simply assert it was unplanned. A man has a choice not to impregnate a woman, but we cannot claim afterward it was not what we intended, that ship has sailed, since our choices are before conception. Personally I think that is a reasonable and moral position.

I think it really depends. For example, if you are in a relationship with someone and you have made it clear you don't want to have children, and your wife decides, on your back, to stop taking the pill without letting you know beforehand... No, it is not the moral and reasonable position to put the financial burden on the man. Or, if your wife told you she would abort in case she got pregnant, but then had a change of mind (not because she found out some sort of medical condition that would put her at major risk if she decided to abort), once again: No, it is not the moral and reasonable position to put the financial burden on the man. On both cases the woman is breaking an agreement.

Now, sure, if the man has always told the woman that he wanted to have children with her, and suddenly he decides to take back his words once she becomes pregnant... I agree that it is indeed immoral to put the whole financial burden on the woman.

Otherwise one would have to accept that the financial burden should be shared by everyone else, so that a man can walk away from the consequences, that doesn't seem right.

That's up to your public policies. You don't have to financially support those children if you, collectively, don't want to.

 

[leroy]

I still would like to know if you believe that the right to life trumps over all others.

No, the right to life doesn’t trump everything.

But it tromps bodily autonomy in the context of abortion or any other analogous situation.

 

[Koldo]

No, the right to life doesn’t trump everything.

But it tromps bodily autonomy in the context of abortion or any other analogous situation.

Why specifically on this case but not on others?

 

[leroy]

They can, no man has to get a woman pregnant, they already have a choice. That choice ends at conception, then it is a woman's body, and must becomes here choice, unless we want to enslave women by removing their bodily autonomy, which I do not, and you earlier made it clear you wouldn't want your own bodily autonomy removed.

I agree with your conclusion but for different reasons, // financial support is the child’s right (not the woman’s right) children have the right to have shelter, food etc. and unless we live in a communist country parents (and not the government) are supposed to provide those for those needs.

and you earlier made it clear you wouldn't want your own bodily autonomy removed.

Granted, I wouldn’t want that, but sometimes **** happens and you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.

I wouldn’t what to pay for financial support for a child that I don’t want nor care about ether, and quite frankly I would rather be 9 months pregnant, than to pay 50% of my income for 18 years,

 

[leroy]

Why specifically on this case but not on others?

Well things like self-defense justify killing a person . If I kidnap you and force you to donate your kidneys to me, you can claim “bodily autonomy” and kill me.

But in the case of pregnancy we are talking about an innocent person

 

[leroy]

You, not we, I assume nothing of the sort,e.

Granted, but the original comment was not directed to you, I was answering to someone else who made another argument, and this other person accepted this assumption (at least for the purpose of this conversation)