Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Koldo]

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.

Unwanted by whom? Why the feminocentric view?
Who said the woman in question is not able to take care of the child?

 

[KWED]

Well things like self-defense justify killing a person .

So if someone goes to punch me, I can kill them? Cool!

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

You consider an early-stage foetus to be "a person" with as many (if not more) rights than the person whose body it relies on. Medical science and the law (as well as rational thinking) does not.
This is a fact of life that you need to learn to deal with.

It is also interesting that you have no qualms about killing fully-grown humans, possibly with family and dependents.
When this is taken with your refusal to adopt unwanted children, it seems that you position is not one of protecting life but rather of punishing women for their sins. 'Twas always thus.

 

[KWED]

Unwanted by whom? Why the feminocentric view?
Who said the woman in question is not able to take care of the child?

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Women tend to have abortions because they do not want to carry the foetus to term (therefore "unwanted"), for one reason or another - including but not exclusively a perceived inability to care for the baby.
Do you disagree with this?

 

[Koldo]

So if someone goes to punch me, I can kill them? Cool!

He never said so. Strawman.

You consider an early-stage foetus to be "a person" with as many (if not more) rights than the person whose body it relies on. Medical science and the law (as well as rational thinking) does not.
This is a fact of life that you need to learn to deal with.

Medical science doesn't deal with personhood.
As for the law, it depends on the country.

 

[Koldo]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Women tend to have abortions because they do not want to carry the foetus to term (therefore "unwanted"), for one reason or another - including but not exclusively a perceived inability to care for the baby.
Do you disagree with this?

No. But it is not necessarily the case it has to do with being unable to care for the child, so why bring it up?
Also, why the feminocentric view? Why call a fetus unwanted just because the woman doesn't want it?

 

[leroy]

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

Granted , but usually the right to live trumps other rights.......one needs very good justification to kill an innocent person..... and unwhanted pregnancy doesn't seem to be a justified exception

 

[Koldo]

Granted , but usually the right to live trumps other rights.......one needs very good justification to kill an innocent person..... and unwhanted pregnancy doesn't seem to be a justified exception

Great, so you agree that the right to life is not necessarily absolute even if it involves an innocent person. Then the discussion is about what counts as a sufficient justification.

I would say that moral considerations regarding a fetus should be intrinsically connected to how far it has developed.

Let me exemplify to explain why I think this way: Assume it is possible, in a given situation, to save a hundred of one month old fetus from certain death OR to save a baby. You ought to pick only one alternative. If it was up to me I would save the baby, because even though the one month old fetuses have the potential to become babies, they have yet to actualize that potential. This would be quite a distinct situation if the fetuses were eight months old though. How would you personally decide if you had to?

 

[KWED]

He never said so. Strawman.

He said "things like self-defense justify killing a person".
Therefore killing someone who was going to punch me (through self-defence) is justified.
Worth noting that response to argument can include the implications of the claims or statements, not just limited to the specific words used.
Hope this helped.

Medical science doesn't deal with personhood.

Medical science informs the law on issues such as abortion, personal capacity, etc.

As for the law, it depends on the country.

Correct.

 

[KWED]

No. But it is not necessarily the case it has to do with being unable to care for the child, so why bring it up?

Erm, because it is an important element relating to the issue. Why not bring it up? Are you suggesting that unless an element in an issue is not universal it should not be mentioned?

Also, why the feminocentric view? Why call a fetus unwanted just because the woman doesn't want it?

Because such cases almost always do not involve a man insisting that she does not terminate the pregnancy. And even then, the foetus is still unwanted by the mother, so your pedantry would seem somewhat ill-judged.

 

[wellwisher]

Under the current law for abortion, men have no rights, even though the unborn, needed for the lucrative abortion industries, cannot appear without a male being present on day one.

If a male did not want the unborn child, due to it being connected to a dead-end relationship; one night stand, but the female wants the child, the male can be forced to become slave labor for 21 years, supporting an unwanted child. e Cannot abort it or put up for adoption. The male has no control over his body and his DNA, by bad law.

On the other hand, if a male loves children and he sees an opportunity to be a parent, the female can kill his child and dash his dreams. He has no say. She is always the victim even when caught with her dagger in his heart. Who came up with this bizarre sexist solution? It smells of Democrat hypocrisy.

The question is, why was a lopsided sexist approach chosen for abortions? It takes away all the rights from the male and it can assign him extra duties and liabilities based female only choices? Sexist laws are against the law.

If no abortion was allowed, both men and women would be in the same boat. Both would need to accept responsibility for their actions, with others choices not possible, like the males currently see. Unless abortion activists can address the hypocrisy against males, it may become outlawed for fairness. Sometime fairness means nobody gets to play, or all get to play. Fairness is not about side always winning, even when cheating.

 

[Koldo]

He said "things like self-defense justify killing a person".
Therefore killing someone who was going to punch me (through self-defence) is justified.
Worth noting that response to argument can include the implications of the claims or statements, not just limited to the specific words used.
Hope this helped.

No. Just no.
The ordinary reading of his sentence is that you are justified in killing someone that is trying to kill you.

Medical science informs the law on issues such as abortion, personal capacity, etc.

It does. But it doesn't inform on what constitutes personhood.

 

[Koldo]

Erm, because it is an important element relating to the issue. Why not bring it up? Are you suggesting that unless an element in an issue is not universal it should not be mentioned?

No. I am saying you shouldn't present it as universal.

Because such cases almost always do not involve a man insisting that she does not terminate the pregnancy. And even then, the foetus is still unwanted by the mother, so your pedantry would seem somewhat ill-judged.

Almost always? Do you have the data?

 

[leroy]

Great, so you agree that the right to life is not necessarily absolute even if it involves an innocent person. Then the discussion is about what counts as a sufficient justification.

I would say that moral considerations regarding a fetus should be intrinsically connected to how far it has developed.

Let me exemplify to explain why I think this way: Assume it is possible, in a given situation, to save a hundred of one month old fetus from certain death OR to save a baby. You ought to pick only one alternative. If it was up to me I would save the baby, because even though the one month old fetuses have the potential to become babies, they have yet to actualize that potential. This would be quite a distinct situation if the fetuses were eight months old though. How would you personally decide if you had to?

Assuming that both the baby and the embryos are strangers to me…. . I would pick the baby, but I don’t have a justification, I guess I have an emotional link for babies that I don’t have fro embryos.

If I watch in the news that 100 woman aborted because they accidentally ate “bad food” and then watch an other news where a single baby died, I would feel more “sad” for the second news.

But quite frankly I don’t have an argument for preferring the baby over the 100 embryos. (just my feelings)

As an analogy if I have to pick between saving 1 dog or 100 rats I would save the dog, but there is no reason to value more the life of the dog, than the life of a rat, I simply have a stronger emotional link for dogs.

But that is an awesome question, I don’t have a good answer

I would say that moral considerations regarding a fetus should be intrinsically connected to how far it has developed.

That seems correct, but I don’t see why. A child is less devoted than an adult but that doesn’t mean that the child has les value than the adult, the value of a person is not determined by the degree of development, so why would things be different with a fetus or a embryo?

Once again, that is a good point and I honestly dotn have an answer.

 

[leroy]

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.

That is a very strange accusation, given that I have asserted the opposite multiple times,

To be clear

the man has to support his son even if:

1 he doesn’t whant to be a father

2 even if the mothe rgot pregnant agaisn his will

3 the condom failed

4 the woman tricked the man by claiming that she was taking “anti-pregancy” pills

5 even if this implies gender inequality in favor of the woman.

The only excpetions are

1 if the mother doesn’t want support from the father (and can provide the support by herself)

2 rape, incest and that kind of things…….. if a woman rapes a 12yo child and she gets pregnant then obviously the 12yo doesn’t have to provide financial support.

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

Everybody men and women have to deal with ***** every once in a while, if there is an unwanted son both have to take care of him at least until someone (like a foster family) takes that responsibility …. Nobody has the right to simply “go away”

The point that I made is that if we force men to pay for financial support for 18 years for their unwanted son, why can’t we “force” a woman to take care of her son for 9 moths , the first seems a much grater burden than the second. ………. This argument assumes that the fetus is a person, this argument doesn’t apply for those who deny the personhood of a fetus.

 

[leroy]

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?

The child doesn’t give a F** about intentions, he has the right for shelter, food and other basic needs, and parents have to supply fort those needs. In my opinion The government (tax payers) shouldn’t pay for the irresponsibility (or bad luck) of the jerk that had sex / got pregnant/ but doesn’t what to take care of the needs of the child.

This is not about punishments or determining whose fault is it, it’s about the child and his right for food shelter and other needs.

So, how many unwanted children have you adopted

none

 

[Sheldon]

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

I know, and you asked how likely it was, and I responded with this:

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?

------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

I have emboldened and underlined it. If this is a high risk, something I find improbable but hey ho, then men can negate it by taking responsibility for contraception.

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 I concur, but if a man were concerned about the risk he could negate it, was my only point. I can't imagine it's that common, but these things do happen I suppose.

Sheldon
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.

How so?

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

Hardly, I think we might have got our wires crossed there.

 

[leroy]

I presented evidence to demonstrate why a foetus or blastocyst is part of a woman's body.

This leads to multiple absurdities.

If the fetus is part of the woman then

1 the woman has 2 brains, 4 eyes, 4 legs, 4 arms, etc.

2 killing a pregnant woman should count as “double murder”

3 hitting a woman and killing the fetus shouldn’t be considered a “worst crime” than hitting an unpregant woman.

4 forcing a woman to abort shouldn’t be a serious crime that has to be paid with prison. (no father would go to jail if he forces his daughter to go to the hospital to remove a tumor) but currently forcing a woman to abort is considered a serious crime that has to be paid with many years of prison

5 pregnant woman should be subject to death penalty (the State shouldn’t wait until the baby is born)

6 you would have to say that everything that is inside your body (and dependent on it) is part of your body including parasites.

7 a 7month fetus would not be a person but a baby that was borned premature at 7 months would be a person, (despite the fact that both are biologically and mentally equal)

And the list goes on,

Prochoiceers are like flat erathers or like YEC they have to grant a lot of absurdities in order to keep their position.


But if you simply say “the fetus is a person because it has (or will have) consciousness, “ you will have a simple claim free of absurdities.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
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.

That is a very strange accusation, given that I have asserted the opposite multiple times,

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

That's from your OP.

To be clear

the man has to support his son even if:

1 he doesn’t whant to be a father

2 even if the mothe rgot pregnant agaisn his will

3 the condom failed

4 the woman tricked the man by claiming that she was taking “anti-pregancy” pills

5 even if this implies gender inequality in favor of the woman.

As I said incongruous alongside your opening assertion.

 

[Koldo]

Assuming that both the baby and the embryos are strangers to me…. . I would pick the baby, but I don’t have a justification, I guess I have an emotional link for babies that I don’t have fro embryos.

If I watch in the news that 100 woman aborted because they accidentally ate “bad food” and then watch an other news where a single baby died, I would feel more “sad” for the second news.

But quite frankly I don’t have an argument for preferring the baby over the 100 embryos. (just my feelings)

As an analogy if I have to pick between saving 1 dog or 100 rats I would save the dog, but there is no reason to value more the life of the dog, than the life of a rat, I simply have a stronger emotional link for dogs.

But that is an awesome question, I don’t have a good answer



That seems correct, but I don’t see why. A child is less devoted than an adult but that doesn’t mean that the child has les value than the adult, the value of a person is not determined by the degree of development, so why would things be different with a fetus or a embryo?

Once again, that is a good point and I honestly dotn have an answer.

What about being human makes us worthy of moral consideration?

I think it has to do with possessing and exhibiting feelings and sentience (and sapience) in the way that human do, which I am going to refer collectively as the 'human experience'. The closer that something gets to the 'human experience' the more moral consideration we tend to grant. So, even though human fetuses are human, they might be so far off from the 'human experience' that we tend to value them less than other humans.

 

[Sheldon]

This leads to multiple absurdities.

The fact you assume the conclusion leads to absurdities has no relevance to the veracity of that conclusion. Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?

But if you simply say “the fetus is a person because it has (or will have) consciousness, “ you will have a simple claim free of absurdities.

Denying biological facts is not free of absurdies, quite the opposite. When it is born it will be a person, so pointing out the attributes it will have after childbirth is irrelevant. Since I am arguing about a foetus or blastocyst, which is not a person, since a 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 again failed to deal with the evidence, only creating straw man fallacies you are assuming must be inferred from the conclusion. I don't agree with many of them, but they are irrelevant, since they tell us nothing about the veracity of the evidence that argues that a foetus is not a person.