Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

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.

Ok I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe the concept of reductio ad absurdum has 2 meanings. (one of them being a fallacy)

 

[Koldo]

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

I am not sure I follow. If someone was to kidnap you and force you to donate your kidneys to an innocent child, can you take them back even if that kills the innocent child?

 

[leroy]

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'.

The way I see it is simple.

1 Children have the right to have shelter, food and bacic needs+

2 parents are supposed to provide those needs (at least in a capitalist “non communist” society)

3 therefore the father has to provide support.

Whether if this results in gender inequality or an injustice or if you what to claim “money autonomy” is secondary, the child´s right trumps all that,


Sure this results in gender inequality in favor of the woman because mothers can abort or give the child in to adoption, the mother –(unlike the father) can avoid her responsibility of being a mother, but never mind gender inequality is not as important as the right for basic needs that children have.

 

[leroy]

I am not sure I follow. If someone was to kidnap you and force you to donate your kidneys to an innocent child, can you take them back even if that kills the innocent child?

No, I can kill the kidnaper and avoid donating my organs, but not the child ……… if the damage was already done and I lost a kidney, I don’t have the right to kill the innocent child to recover my kidney,

 

[Koldo]

No, I can kill the kidnaper and avoid donating my organs, but not the child ……… if the damage was already done and I lost a kidney, I don’t have the right to kill the innocent child to recover my kidney,

The plural was intended. I meant it as in you lost both kidneys. You either take them back or... well.... better pray for a donor.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Me, I was offering an opinion obviously, as morality is subjective.

This sounds like 'what if hetero males get into female bathrooms, pretendending to be trans, just to rape women'?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but that is a wild non-sequitur.

I mean, sure, that's possible, but how likely is it? What's even the major benefit in doing it?

How likely is it that some men would father children, and try to avoid financial responsibility, pretty likely I'd guess. The benefit of enjoying sex, and of avoiding paying for the upkeep of children, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? I think we can take it as read that people desire sex, and I think we can take it as read that some people are selfish, and I think we can take it as read that some people are greedy, I'm not sure what else you're asking?

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.

I disagree and think it is, and why would it be the woman's responsibility to ensure the use of proper contraception in?

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,

Again why do create a scenario where you put the entire onus on a woman? I'm a man, and I am capable of taking responsibility for contraception, and even then whatever the circumstances, I would remain responsible if a woman conceived as a result. I'd be, indeed I am, appalled at the notion I would father a child then deny responsibility, even were it not planned.

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.

Well then unless you want to be put in that position I guess you have to examine your choices, as you can never know with absolute certainty what another person is thinking, that is the nature of human relationships, and all any of us can do, is to take responsibility for our own actions.

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

Just let children die you mean? You surely have not thought that through.

 

[Sheldon]

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

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

No it doesn't, since we are just reeling off unevidenced subjective opinions.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

An oddly incongruous assertion, in a thread where you are suggesting men ought not to be held accountable for a pregnancy if they don't want the child, but a woman ought to be forced to carry the pregnancy through to childbirth.

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,

Ah I see, **** happens, but as long as it happens to a woman and doesn't happen to you.

and quite frankly I would rather be 9 months pregnant, than to pay 50% of my income for 18 years,

And when you can make that choice I will support your right to bodily autonomy, despite your appallingly glib and misogynistic comments here. In the mean time, if you father a child you should be responsible for it, regardless of whether this inconvenience puts a dent in your lifestyle. Just as a woman should, if she chooses to go ahead and give birth.

 

[leroy]

The plural was intended. I meant it as in you lost both kidneys. You either take them back or... well.... better pray for a donor.

I dont think I'll have the right to kill the child , even if I die ... well I don't know I guess its an interesting dilema.

But this is not analogous to abortion anyway. Pregnant woman usually don't die , when the woman is likely to die and abortion is the only way out I would grant her right to abort.

 

[Sheldon]

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

No we're not, we are talking about an insentient blastocyst, or foetus. Though ironically the "innocence" of this insentient foetus seems to evaporate for you, when it is born and becomes a sentient human, and you have to show paternal responsibility.

 

[Sheldon]

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)

Ok, but given you were responding to and quoting a post of mine, you might offer a clearer assertion. However I accept you meant to assert that you and Koldo assumed this.

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

 

[Sheldon]

Pregnant woman usually don't die ,

You're kidding right?

when the woman is likely to die and abortion is the only way out I would grant her right to abort.

Why? I mean you think you're killing an innocent person, why is one persons life suddenly more important than another's, this seems oddly incongruous.

 

[ppp]

You're kidding right?



Why? I mean you think you're killing an innocent person, why is one persons life suddenly more important than another's, this seems oddly incongruous.

Because...reasons?

 

[Sheldon]

Sure this results in gender inequality in favor of the woman because mothers can abort or give the child in to adoption, the mother –(unlike the father) can avoid her responsibility of being a mother,

A biological father would not be anymore financially responsible than the biological mother, in the event a child was legally adopted.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
You're kidding right?



Why? I mean you think you're killing an innocent person, why is one persons life suddenly more important than another's, this seems oddly incongruous.

Because...reasons?

I meant it seemed incongruous alongside some of his previous assertions.

 

[ppp]

I meant it seemed incongruous alongside some of his previous assertions.

I would never claim to have encountered an anti-choicer who is internally consistent.

 

[Koldo]

I dont think I'll have the right to kill the child , even if I die ... well I don't know I guess its an interesting dilema.

But this is not analogous to abortion anyway. Pregnant woman usually don't die , when the woman is likely to die and abortion is the only way out I would grant her right to abort.

It is not analogous. My point was that being innocent doesn't automatically make your right to life trump someone else's rights.

 

[Koldo]

Me, I was offering an opinion obviously, as morality is subjective.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but that is a wild non-sequitur.

How likely is it that some men would father children, and try to avoid financial responsibility, pretty likely I'd guess. The benefit of enjoying sex, and of avoiding paying for the upkeep of children, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? I think we can take it as read that people desire sex, and I think we can take it as read that some people are selfish, and I think we can take it as read that some people are greedy, I'm not sure what else you're asking?

I was referring to the scenario you have mentioned where men would intentionally have children and then leave them behind.

I disagree and think it is, and why would it be the woman's responsibility to ensure the use of proper contraception in?

I have no idea how this relates to the cases where a woman decides to stop taking the pill without letting the man know beforehand. Please do elaborate.

Again why do create a scenario where you put the entire onus on a woman? I'm a man, and I am capable of taking responsibility for contraception, and even then whatever the circumstances, I would remain responsible if a woman conceived as a result. I'd be, indeed I am, appalled at the notion I would father a child then deny responsibility, even were it not planned.

Nowadays, the couple discusses what alternative works best for them, be it to use a condom or the pill, or something else entirely such as abortion. It is done in agreement. I am merely mentioning as an example the cases where the agreement entails the woman taking certain actions. It might as well be case the agreement is about using a male condom. It is hard not to notice your partner not wearing one though.

Well then unless you want to be put in that position I guess you have to examine your choices, as you can never know with absolute certainty what another person is thinking, that is the nature of human relationships, and all any of us can do, is to take responsibility for our own actions.

I agree. But we disagree what those responsibilities are for each one involved.

Just let children die you mean? You surely have not thought that through.

Surely you don't mean that children with single mothers would outright die. Right?

 

[KWED]

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?

An impractical question.
It could be argued that financial responsibility would depend on intention, which would be somewhat difficult to determine in many cases.
If two people have a one night stand and use contraception, there is no intention to conceive a child so one could argue there is no financial responsibility.
If a couple decide to have a child and then one of them leaves then one could argue that here is a responsibility.

So, how many unwanted children have you adopted?

 

[KWED]

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.

Not so. In his OP, Leroy uses the woman's ability to terminate an unwanted foetus (for reasons obviously including an inability to care for) as one side of the argument.

Thanks for taking the time to comment though.