Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Koldo]

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


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

You can fully enjoy sex without intentionally getting someone pregnant. It doesn't make sense to intentionally get women pregnant if all one wants is sex.

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.

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.

How so?

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

To take responsibility is to withstand the costs that resulted from a breach of contract you have caused yourself, rather than pushing it on someone else.

 

[HonestJoe]

Under the current law for abortion, men have no rights

That isn't technically true. If a man ever fell pregnant, he would have exactly the same legal rights in relation to abortion as a pregnant woman.

The question is, why was a lopsided sexist approach chosen for abortions?

The law isn't sexist, biology is. Unless you can come up with a way for 50% of pregnancies to be carried by men, that imbalance is never going to be resolved, regardless of how we address it in law and society.

If no abortion was allowed, both men and women would be in the same boat.

How would they be in the same boat? They'd both face the same financial and social factors but the woman would have the additional impact of being pregnant and being legally forced to carry the child to term.

 

[Sheldon]

You can fully enjoy sex without intentionally getting someone pregnant. It doesn't make sense to intentionally get women pregnant if all one wants is sex.

Indeed, but I never suggested otherwise? I think we may be arguing at cross purposes again.

To take responsibility is to withstand the costs that resulted from a breach of contract you have caused yourself, rather than pushing it on someone else.

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean here, or how it relevant to men bearing the same responsibility as women for contraception. Your scenario of a duplicitous woman tricking a man, to get pregnant, could be negated by a man not taking that risk, if any man thinks such duplicity is likely of course.

 

[Koldo]

Indeed, but I never suggested otherwise? I think we may be arguing at cross purposes again.

I am referring to this quote:

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

Why would a man intentionally have children to leave them just after?

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean here, or how it relevant to men bearing the same responsibility as women for contraception. Your scenario of a duplicitous woman tricking a man, to get pregnant, could be negated by a man not taking that risk, if any man thinks such duplicity is likely of course.

This is victim blaming. It is just like saying that women can negate the risk of being raped by their spouses by never marrying. While true, you most certainly can't hold the victim as the one responsible for what transpired.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
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.



As I said incongruous alongside your opening assertion.

wow

Ok I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you made an honest mistake


the OP

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?

Obviously I expalinign the concept of “male abortion” (or paper abortion) and explained the logic behind that I argument, I never said (nor implied) that I support “male abortion”……………..in fact I clearly and unambiguously claimed that I am against “male abortion” implying that men can´t simply go away

 

[leroy]

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.

The question is:

Should we trust our moral intuition and conclude that a fetus is worth less than a baby, or should we try say that both are human and therefore both are equally valuable (and accept all the apparent absurdities)

Or perhaps having consciousness in this specific moments makes you more valuable than someone that will have consciousness in 9 months, but this will imply that people in coma are less valuable.

I have no idea, seems an interesting and hard to solve ethical question

 

[ppp]

The question is:

Should we trust our moral intuition and conclude that a fetus is worth less than a baby, or should we try say that both are human and therefore both are equally valuable (and accept all the apparent absurdities)

Or perhaps having consciousness in this specific moments makes you more valuable than someone that will have consciousness in 9 months, but this will imply that people in coma are less valuable.

I have no idea, seems an interesting and hard to solve ethical question

Bodily rights.

 

[Sheldon]

This is victim blaming. It is just like saying that women can negate the risk of being raped by their spouses by never marrying. While true, you most certainly can't hold the victim as the one responsible for what transpired.

I don't think they are remotely similar, since a man is not being forced to have unprotected sex, or to leave the responsibility of contraception entirely up to a woman. Rape on the other hand, takes away the victim's choices entirely, in an egregious act of degrading violence.

 

[Sheldon]

Obviously I expalinign the concept of “male abortion” (or paper abortion) and explained the logic behind that I argument, I never said (nor implied) that I support “male abortion”……………..in fact I clearly and unambiguously claimed that I am against “male abortion” implying that men can´t simply go away

Yes but you have made assertions that posit contradictory claims, hence incongruous.

If the fetus is not a human then abortion (or forcing someone to abort) shouldn’t be a big of a deal.

Why can the man do whatever he wants with his own body?...........why can’t the man decide not to use his legs (his body), walk to the bank and make a deposit for the fanatical support of his children?

why can’t men descide not to be feathers and run away without paying “child support”?

Why can’t the man say “hey I don’t care if you abort, give the child in to adoption, or raise him and be his mother, but I don’t whant to be a father so do not expect support from my part”

 

[Koldo]

I don't think they are remotely similar, since a man is not being forced to have unprotected sex, or to leave the responsibility of contraception entirely up to a woman. Rape on the other hand, takes away the victim's choices entirely, in an egregious act of degrading violence.

Women also aren't forced to marry in western countries, generally speaking. They can choose to remain single their entire lives. By your reasoning, they are to blame for believing their spouse won't rape them, just like men are to blame for trusting their spouses.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Either we are responsible for what happens when we trust our spouses or we are not.

 

[leroy]

Yes but you have made assertions that posit contradictory claims, hence incongruous.

You are dishonestly and willingly taking my comments out of context…….. but FYI I don’t think men should have the right to simply go away and avoid the responsibility of having a son, (even if it´s unwanted)

Is my position clear?

 

[leroy]

I don't think they are remotely similar, since a man is not being forced to have unprotected sex, or to leave the responsibility of contraception entirely up to a woman. Rape on the other hand, takes away the victim's choices entirely, in an egregious act of degrading violence.

What if the man (say a 12yo) was rapped and the woman got pregnant? Should he have any responsibility and support the child?

What’s your opinion on that?

 

[Sheldon]

Women also aren't forced to marry in western countries, generally speaking. They can choose to remain single their entire lives.

Straw man, I never said otherwise.

By your reasoning, they are to blame for believing their spouse won't rape them, just like men are to blame for trusting their spouses.

Please stop telling me what my reasoning is, and then introducing ludicrous straw men. Deception might be immoral, but it is not remotely comparable to rape. Marriage is a moving fo the goal posts as your original point was just a man being deceived by a woman that she was on the pill. Again, a man need not leave contraception entirely up to a woman, men have choices, rape victims do not. It's a facile comparison.

You can't eat your cake and have it too. Either we are responsible for what happens when we trust our spouses or we are not.

What a spectacularly facile assertion. Firstly I never claimed a man was responsible if he were deceived in the scenario you described, that is just a dishonest straw man you assigned me, I merely pointed out that men have a choice, and need not leave the responsibility of contraception entirely to women. To compare that to being raped is idiotically facile, and morally repugnant.

 

[Sheldon]

You are dishonestly and willingly taking my comments out of context…….. but FYI I don’t think men should have the right to simply go away and avoid the responsibility of having a son, (even if it´s unwanted)

Is my position clear?

You're shooting the messenger, you posted ideas that seemed incongruous, that was all that I pointed out, nothing more.

 

[Sheldon]

What if the man (say a 12yo) was rapped and the woman got pregnant? Should he have any responsibility and support the child?

What’s your opinion on that?

No, a 12 year old child cannot give informed consent, ever. What you're describing is a crime, and the child would be the victim. That is not remotely comparable to an adult making an informed choice to trust a sexual partner, and choosing to leave the responsibility of contraception entirely to them. It's wrong to deceive someone in the way described, but not remotely comparable to rape, especially that of a child, as the man has a choice, rape victims do not.

 

[KWED]

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

Firstly, what is "an ordinary reading"? My "ordinary reading" inferred killing is justified in response to a threat against an individual's safety or wellbeing.

Second, so you claim that "self-defence" can only be a thing against attempted murder. It is not a thing against attempted assault, mugging, rape, etc.
To borrow a phrase..."No. Just no."

Also, we are not necessarily justified in killing someone who is trying to kill us. If we can defend ourselves or avoid harm without killing the other person then we could be open to charges of manslaughter.

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

It does inform the law on when abortion is legally acceptable, which involves the concept of when a foetus becomes a "person".

 

[KWED]

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

I didn't. (I'm sure there's an expression for attacking an argument that wasn't made. Hmm...)

Almost always? Do you have the data?

Yes. In the last 50 years in the UK there have been two cases where a man has attempted to prevent the abortion of a foetus he fathered. Both cases were rejected.

 

[KWED]

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.

But you asked about parental responsibility, not the rights of the child.
So basically, you reject the concept of the welfare state as a safety net for those unable to provide for themselves. If you can't cope, you die.
What about orphans? Are they to be left to fend for themselves as well?

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.

It kinda goes without saying that children should be looked after by someone. Your question was about who that should be. So you basically reject the idea of a "no-fault accident". Whatever the situation we must lay blame on someone and then make them pay.

none

So your "concern" for the unborn child is actually more a desire to punish women. It is often the way with the "pro-life" religious right.
As you have shown above, once the baby is born, you don't really care about it.

 

[leroy]

But you asked about parental responsibility, not the rights of the child.
So basically, you reject the concept of the welfare state as a safety net for those unable to provide for themselves. If you can't cope, you die.
What about orphans? Are they to be left to fend for themselves as well?

That’s a last resort, first we have to “force” parents top pay, if they run away and avoid the law, then the government has to take care of the child at least until a Foster family takes that responsibility.

I am not saying anything controversial, this is how laws work in most countries.

It kinda goes without saying that children should be looked after by someone. Your question was about who that should be. So you basically reject the idea of a "no-fault accident". Whatever the situation we must lay blame on someone and then make them pay.

Would you claim the opposite? If a man has sex, and the woman got pregnant, shouldn’t he be legally obligated to provide financial support for the child? Do you disagree?

So your "concern" for the unborn child is actually more a desire to punish women. It is often the way with the "pro-life" religious right.

In what way am I punishing the woman?.........all I am saying is that women (and men) should´t have the right to kill innocent people and that both have to take care of their son even if she got pregnant against their will. (at least until someone else wants/can take care of him)

Does this sound like a punishment for women? ……..

Should innocent persons (babies’ children fetus, etc.) be punished just because their parents got pregnant against their will?

As you have shown above, once the baby is born, you don't really care about it.

Irrelevant, even if I personally don’t care about babies, that does nothing to justify abortion, nor men running away and avoid their responsibility. Things can be ether morally wrong or morally ok independently of what I personally do.

The OP is about on whether if men should have the right to run away and avoid their responsibility, not whether if I am personally a good person who cares about babies or not

 

[leroy]

You're shooting the messenger, you posted ideas that seemed incongruous, that was all that I pointed out, nothing more.

The point of those comments is to show that men can use the same type of arguments that “pro choicer” use to avoid their responsibility. (the point is that those arguments are absurd)

The man can claim “bodily autonomy” claim that he can do whatever we wants with his legs, and decide if he what’s to walk to the bank and make a deposit for the financial support of the child…………..obviously my point is that this is a ridiculous argument but is analogous to “bodily autonomy arguments”

(I am talking about the type of arguments that say “it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person or not” abolition is justifiable because of bodily autonomy) … I have no idea if this type of argument represents you and I am not accusing you of making such type of arguments.