Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[KWED]

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.

I didn't realise you were asking what the law is. I assumed it was a thought exercise into possible solutions. I gave an answer on that basis.

As I explained, it could be argued that financial responsibility relies to some degree on intent. For example, a woman does not tell her partner she has stopped taking contraceptive measures/sabotaged his contraceptive measures, despite them agreeing they are not going to have children. The man is appalled by this dishonesty and breaks up with her. Should the man be financially responsible for the child conceived through unilateral action?

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?

Depends on the circumstances.
Like most things in life it is not a binary issue. You claim that it is acceptable to kill someone in self defence. Presumably you don't think that this applies to any and all potential threats to your safety or wellbeing, regardless of the circumstances?
There are many examples in life where people are not held responsible (financial or otherwise) for outcomes that they had little or no control over. A man who kills several children because a defective tyre blew out while driving past a school bus stop would not be charged with manslaughter of forced to pay compensation.

In what way am I punishing the woman?.........

If you are not concerned with the welfare of the child once it is born (you clearly aren't because you haven't adopted any unwanted children, despite there being thousands languishing in the care system), then your claim that your opposition to abortion is about the welfare of the child is clearly false. Therefore the only other justification is to punish the woman.
I may be missing something though. Feel free to tell me what your actual justification is.

all I am saying is that women (and men) should´t have the right to kill innocent people

They don't.

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

I am not suggesting the child be punished. That is your position. Unlike you I believe in a functioning, universal welfare state. If the parent/s of a child have insufficient resources to adequately look after it, the state should step in - regardless of why there is a shortfall.

Irrelevant,

How is the welfare of the child "irrelevant". You claim it is your primary concern (although that train has now left the station).

The OP is about on whether if men should have the right to run away and avoid their responsibility

Question begging. We have not established that they all have "responsibilities", or what those responsibilities are.

However, as you seem to think it is ok for you to run away from your responsibility to the child once you have forced the mother to give birth to it, it would seem somewhat hypocritical if you denied the same privilege to the father.

 

[Sheldon]

women (and men) should´t have the right to kill innocent people

They don't, at least within the context of abortion. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. Though this would effectively kill the developing foetus, it is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a 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.

 

[leroy]

As I explained, it could be argued that financial responsibility relies to some degree on intent. For example, a woman does not tell her partner she has stopped taking contraceptive measures/sabotaged his contraceptive measures, despite them agreeing they are not going to have children. The man is appalled by this dishonesty and breaks up with her. Should the man be financially responsible for the child conceived through unilateral action?

I would say yes


Sh**t happens every once in a while, what other alternative do you suggest?

1 ignore the needs of the child?

2 Tax payers should pay for the needs of that kid?

In my opinion option 2 has to be a last resort.

Besides if the man claims that the woman tricked him, who has the burden proof? Does the man has to prove that she lied? Or should the state trust the word of the man?

If the man has the burden proof that would seem to be an impossible task in most of the cases, if the man has the benefit of the doubt you will open the door for millions of jerks that what to avoid the responsibility of having a child.

How is the welfare of the child "irrelevant". You claim it is your primary concern (although that train has now left the station).

I said that my own personal actions are irrelevant to determine moral issues.

However, as you seem to think it is ok for you to run away from your responsibility to the child once you have forced the mother to give birth to it, it would seem somewhat hypocritical if you denied the same privilege to the father.

I am forcing* women to not kill innocent people……….this shouldn’t even be a controversial issue.

 

[KWED]

I would say yes

On what grounds?

Sh**t happens every once in a while, what other alternative do you suggest?

Erm, not holding people responsible for something that they had little or no control over. Didn't you read my post?

1 ignore the needs of the child?

No. You are the one who believes that the welfare of the child is irrelevant once it has been born.

2 Tax payers should pay for the needs of that kid?

Where necessary, yes.

In my opinion option 2 has to be a last resort.

Yes. If no one else is reasonably responsible, then it is the state's responsibility, by default.

Besides if the man claims that the woman tricked him, who has the burden proof? Does the man has to prove that she lied? Or should the state trust the word of the man?

We are talking principles. We can assume that it is confirmed.

I said that my own personal actions are irrelevant to determine moral issues.

It seems somewhat hypocritical to insist on defining absolute moral principles, only to then ignore them. If you aren't going to abide by your own moral framework, why bother having one?

I am forcing* women to not kill innocent people……….this shouldn’t even be a controversial issue.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto; you say kill an innocent person, I say terminate an early-stage foetus; tomayto, tomahto; innocent person, early-stage foetus; let's call the whole thing off...

 

[Koldo]

Straw man, I never said otherwise.

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.

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.

How about sticking to the points presented rather than resorting to doing that?

I was referring specifically to marital rape. Women have the choice to remain single and therefore completely avoid marital rape.

If you don't think that men that have been deceived are responsible, then do you agree that they shouldn't have to face any financial burden?

 

[leroy]

They don't, at least within the context of abortion. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy.

In abortion one delivery and actively kills a fetus (this is not a mere “let it die”)

Though this would effectively kill the developing foetus, it is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a 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.

The argument presupposes that the fetus is a person, the argument is intended to refute the “aborting is ok even if the fetus is a person, because of bodily autonomy”………if you are the type of person that would make such an argument, then the argument applies to you, if you wouldn’t make such a claim then the argument doesn’t apply to you

Jointly these facts pose a very strong case

I disagree for the reasons explained before...............
Being connected to something + being dependent on that thing + being inside that thing+ sharing stuff with that thing doesn’t makes you part of that thing.



But I would add that you need more than just a” strong case”. (assuming that you grant that abortion would be wrong if the fetus where a person)… if you reject that claim then the following argument doesn’t apply to you

Even if there is room for reasonable doubt on whether if the fetus is a person or not, abortion would not be justified, you should kill “something” unless and until you are 100% sure (or near 100$ sure) that it is not a person.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Ordinary reading as in not assuming the worst possible interpretation is true.

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."

I have never stated that.

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.

I haven't stated otherwise.

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

No, it doesn't. That's a social and political matter. Biological information aids in better understand the facts which in turn influence the people and politicians, but no biological fact is going to prescribe, by itself, when abortion is legally acceptable.

 

[Koldo]

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

Oh Yes, you did:

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 have presented 'being unable to care for the child' as being universal across abortions cases.

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.

Multiple problems here: the man might not even know the woman was pregnant, the man might decide that it is up to the woman to choose about abortion even though he wants the child, the man might be advised that seeking legal measures won't work, the man might not have the means to seek legal action... and so on...

 

[Sheldon]

How about sticking to the points presented rather than resorting to doing that?

You will have to give me a clue what you're referring to, but since you are hopping around like a frog on amphetamines, adding straw men and red herrings like rape, I find that bare accusation pretty hilarious.

I was referring specifically to marital rape. Women have the choice to remain single and therefore completely avoid marital rape.

Again I find your idea that being misled when one could take precautions, and being raped, are remotely synonymous deeply worrying. rape is rape, married or not, the crime is equally egregious and immoral.

If you don't think that men that have been deceived are responsible, then do you agree that they shouldn't have to face any financial burden?

No, a man makes a choice to have sex, knowing it might lead to conception, the choices a man has exist up to that point. No one makes any choices that play any part in being raped, that is solely the decision of the rapist.

 

[leroy]

On what grounds?

Erm, not holding people responsible for something that they had little or no control over. Didn't you read my post?

That’s how daily life works; every single day you have to pay for things that you didn’t had control over.

If you play baseball and break a window, you have to pay for that window, you can’t blame the wind for changing the trajectory of the ball and “claim I have no control of the wind therefore I don’t have to pay anything”

No. You are the one who believes that the welfare of the child is irrelevant once it has been born.

why just because I havend adopted any children?

Yes. If no one else is reasonably responsible, then it is the state's responsibility, by default.

So the state has to pay for the broken window?

We are talking principles. We can assume that it is confirmed.

Well I disagree, parents have to support their children even if she got pregnant against his will

It seems somewhat hypocritical to insist on defining absolute moral principles, only to then ignore them. If you aren't going to abide by your own moral framework, why bother having one?

My alleged hypocrisy is irrelevant.

 

[Sheldon]

In abortion one delivery and actively kills a fetus (this is not a mere “let it die”)

They don't, at least within the context of abortion. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. Though this would effectively kill the developing foetus,

Do you even read a post before responding?

The argument presupposes that the fetus is a person, the argument is intended to refute the “aborting is ok even if the fetus is a person, because of bodily autonomy”

I don't agree it is a person, and have presented evidence to support that, and since you have denied that, and again asserted it, I was minded to comment, especially since you have failed to address the evidence I presented, and thus defend your position.

………if you are the type of person that would make such an argument, then the argument applies to you, if you wouldn’t make such a claim then the argument doesn’t apply to you

Why don't you decide what and when you post, and I will decide what and when I post, how about that...

I disagree for the reasons explained before...............

You have offered no explanations, or reasons just bare denial, and endless straw man fallacies and you didn't even address the evidence beyond one or two points. Which you then misrepresented with some facile analogous straw man.

Being connected to something + being dependent on that thing + being inside that thing+ sharing stuff with that thing doesn’t makes you part of that thing.

So your argument is a bare denial? Which still doesn't address the evidence presented. Here it is again then:

Sheldon
" it is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a 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."

But I would add that you need more than just a” strong case”.

Really, all you have offered in response is bare denial?

Even if there is room for reasonable doubt on whether if the fetus is a person or not,

Present that doubt then? My evidence is above.

you should kill “something” unless and until you are 100% sure (or near 100$ sure) that it is not a person.

Well firstly this is a rather facile generalisation, when we are talking specifically about introducing laws that would enslave women, in order to give rights to an insentient blastocyst or foetus, so why? We would not grant such rights to a sentient adult, to use its parents parents body against their wishes after it is born, so why would we grant those rights to an insentient blastocyst or foetus?

 

[Bree]

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?

wouldn't it be nice if the world never needed to even contemplate this in the first place.

Life is precious but sex misused often leads to heartache and pain. This is why Gods laws on sexual relations are so tight and stringent. Life and liberty is at stake when sex is misused.

 

[Sheldon]

Life is precious but sex misused often leads to heartache and pain. This is why Gods laws on sexual relations are so tight and stringent.

An omniscient deity couldn't fathom a way to solve those issues? I don't believe any deity exists of course, but I must say I find that idea dubious...

 

[Bree]

An omniscient deity couldn't fathom a way to solve those issues? I don't believe any deity exists of course, but I must say I find that idea dubious...

he certainly did fathom a way to solve those issues.

1. Marriage. A permanent union between a man and a woman.

 

[Sheldon]

he certainly did fathom a way to solve those issues.

1. Marriage. A permanent union between a man and a woman.

Which clearly is not a solution, that much is demonstrably true, even to the intellect of an evolved ape.

 

[ppp]

he certainly did fathom a way to solve those issues.

1. Marriage. A permanent union between a man and a woman.

Yeah. He just couldn't get anything right at all. Maybe this was his first universe.

 

[Koldo]

You will have to give me a clue what you're referring to, but since you are hopping around like a frog on amphetamines, adding straw men and red herrings like rape, I find that bare accusation pretty hilarious.

Without doing this. This is not a good way to discuss anything. This breaks the communication apart.

Again I find your idea that being misled when one could take precautions, and being raped, are remotely synonymous deeply worrying. rape is rape, married or not, the crime is equally egregious and immoral.

No, a man makes a choice to have sex, knowing it might lead to conception, the choices a man has exist up to that point. No one makes any choices that play any part in being raped, that is solely the decision of the rapist.

You are downplaying what I am talking about. I am not talking about the cases of simple accidental pregnancies. I am talking about the cases where there is an agreement beforehand.

Either a person is responsible for what others do to them or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In both cases the victims could have done something different that would have prevented themselves of becoming victims in a given situation. The man could have remained celibate, for example, and the woman could have remained single.

I am saying that in both cases they are NOT responsible for what happened to them EVEN if they could have prevented it. You are not responsible for what others do to you just because you could have prevented it. That's not how responsibility is assessed.

 

[ppp]

I am saying that in both cases they are NOT responsible for what happened to them EVEN if they could have prevented it. You are not responsible for what others do to you just because you could have prevented it. That's not how responsibility is assessed.

You are, however, responsible for what you do or fail to do. That is how responsibility works.

If one is able to stop a rape and one stands by and watches, them one is scum that deserves a kick in the head. At the very least.

 

[Koldo]

You are, however, responsible for what you do or fail to do. That is how responsibility works.

If one is able to stop a rape and one stands by and watches, them one is scum that deserves a kick in the head. At the very least.

Sure. I agree.

 

[ppp]

Sure. I agree.

Cool. There is nothing wrong about having an abortion.