Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Koldo]

Cool. There is nothing wrong about having an abortion.

As I see it, it depends. Early term and late term abortion are two different beasts.

 

[KWED]

Oh Yes, you did:
You have presented 'being unable to care for the child' as being universal across abortions cases.

A "normal reading" of that would infer "being unable to care sufficiently" was one of the main reasons for women wanting abortions (which it is), not that it was the only reason.

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...

Multiple problems here...
Do you have data for these claims?
You asked for data to support my claim, which I provided.
The hypotheticals you provide also involve men not opposing the woman having the abortion, which was my point. Which you challenged. And I demonstrated.

This is fun.

 

[Koldo]

A "normal reading" of that would infer "being unable to care sufficiently" was one of the main reasons for women wanting abortions (which it is), not that it was the only reason.

Nope. You have deliberately presented it as the universal reason.

Multiple problems here...
Do you have data for these claims?
You asked for data to support my claim, which I provided.

Data for them being actual reasons or data for how prevalent they are?

The hypotheticals you provide also involve men not opposing the woman having the abortion, which was my point. Which you challenged. And I demonstrated.

This is fun.

I haven't brought up cases where the man doesn't oppose the woman. I have brought up one case where despite his opposition the man decides to leave the final choice up to the woman.

 

[KWED]

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

A normal reading would be assuming all potential interpretations are possible. I think what you are referring to is better described as cherry-picking, confirmation bias, etc.

I have never stated that.

It's what you implied.

I haven't stated otherwise.

So you accept that my objections to Leroy's claim are reasonable.
Cool.

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.

The decision making process that results in the formulation of the law on abortion is informed and advised by medical science (as well as other elements, before your pedantry gets out of hand again). That is a simple fact.

 

[Koldo]

A normal reading would be assuming all potential interpretations are possible. I think what you are referring to is better described as cherry-picking, confirmation bias, etc.

It is not even cherry picking or confirmation bias. If I come across a name for it I will let you know.

It's what you implied.

So you accept that my objections to Leroy's claim are reasonable.
Cool.

Not at all. You are beating a strawman you have created yourself. I do accept your objections to the stawman you have created though.

The decision making process that results in the formulation of the law on abortion is informed and advised by medical science (as well as other elements, before your pedantry gets out of hand again). That is a simple fact.

I agree. But this is completely different from stating stuff like: "It does inform the law on when abortion is legally acceptable, which involves the concept of when a foetus becomes a "person"."

 

[KWED]

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”

Poor analogy.
Firstly, if you are playing baseball in a baseball ground there will not be breakable windows within range. If you play in a non-designated area within range of windows, you are not taking appropriate measures to prevent breaking windows. I have seen windows broken playing cricket and golf on designated areas. the individual did not have to pay for the windows as the club takes responsibility.

Generally, we are not held responsible for things that are outside our control.

why just because I havend adopted any children?

Partly. And partly because you don't think the state should care for the unwanted children you would insist on bringing into the world.

So the state has to pay for the broken window?

Yes, that's how it works (well, the club, in the case of your analogy).

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

I have gathered that you disagree. However, you don't seem to be able to justify that with rational argument.

My alleged hypocrisy is irrelevant.

Not really. You can't claim the moral high-ground when you are actually standing in a ditch.

 

[GardenLady]

Early term and late term abortion are two different beasts.

Certainly. Late term abortion is extremely rare (less than 1% after 24 weeks) and is largely associated with fetal abnormality incompatible with life or severe maternal health risk. When it is an issue of maternal health risk in very late-term, the result is typically early caesarian and not abortion (like my cousin who had a C-section at 30 weeks).

 

[Koldo]

Certainly. Late term abortion is extremely rare (less than 1% after 24 weeks) and is largely associated with fetal abnormality incompatible with life or severe maternal health risk. When it is an issue of maternal health risk in very late-term, the result is typically early caesarian and not abortion (like my cousin who had a C-section at 30 weeks).

It is also generally not possible to do it on demand which most certainly contributes to the low rate, or at least the reported rate.

 

[Sheldon]

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

I'm none the wiser sorry?

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.

No I am stating definitively that drawing any kind of analogous comparison between being lied to, and being raped, is an absurd comparison, and that comparison wasn't mine was it?

Either a person is responsible for what others do to them or it is not.

Do you think lying to someone, and raping someone, are comparable? Do you think a man has a choice about using contraception, and need not leave that entirely to a woman? Do you think any decisions a rape victim makes make them in any way culpable for being raped, or are rapists entirely culpable for the rape?

In both cases the victims could have done something different that would have prevented themselves of becoming victims in a given situation.

What can a rape victim do to prevent being raped?

I am saying that in both cases they are NOT responsible for what happened to them EVEN if they could have prevented it.

How can a rape victim prevent what happens to them? Also you seem again to be suggesting these situations are remotely comparable, which they are not. Being lied to and being raped are not remotely comparable.

You are not responsible for what others do to you just because you could have prevented it. That's not how responsibility is assessed.

Straw man, I never said a man is responsible for being lied to, only that they have choices and need not leave a woman be entirely responsible for contraception. Again this is not remotely comparable to being raped. try this, if a rape victim could prevent their own rape with a concord or a pill, or refusing sex, what are the odds they would not do it? I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[leroy]

Poor analogy.
Firstly, if you are playing baseball in a baseball ground there will not be breakable windows within range. If you play in a non-designated area within range of windows, you are not taking appropriate measures to prevent breaking windows. I have seen windows broken playing cricket and golf on designated areas. the individual did not have to pay for the windows as the club takes responsibility.

By that logic, if you are having sex without protection, you are not taking appropriate measures to prevent pregnancy. / lets say that I lied to you and told you that the windows of the house across the street are unbreakable, should you pay for the windows that your broke? Or would you say “,no, no , no a random guy from a forum told me that the windows are unbreakable, go find him and ask him to pay for your window”

My point is that both the child and the guy who’s window is broken are innocent, they don’t have to pay just because someone else lied to you.

the individual did not have to pay for the windows as the club takes responsibility

Well that is because you are playing according to the rules of the club. ... i dont see an analogy

Generally, we are not held responsible for things that are outside our control.

Can you think on any example analogous to a woman getting pregnant against your will?

Partly. And partly because you don't think the state should care for the unwanted children you would insist on bringing into the world.

No I never made such a claim, I said that the state has to be the last resort, … first we most force the father to provide financial support, only if that alternative fails the government should take care of the situation

(This assumes that the mother can´t do it by herself, and is not getting support from anyone else)

Yes, that's how it works (well, the club, in the case of your analogy).

Well lets say that broken widows become an issue in the club because many guest play without taking measures to prevent broken windows.

I can imagine that in this case most members of the club would vi}ote that whoever brakes the window has to pay for it. / why would responsible members have to pay a quote for “broken windows”

I have gathered that you disagree. However, you don't seem to be able to justify that with rational argument.

Children should not have to pay the consequences nor sacrifice their basic rights just because his parents got pregnant against their will.

And tax payers shouldn’t pay for the irresponsibility of jerks that had sex / got pregnant / and don’t what to take responsibility (unless there is no other option)

I don’t see why isn’t this argument good enough

Not really. You can't claim the moral high-ground when you are actually standing in a ditch.

I don t think it’s a fare accusation, just because I haven’t adopted any children that doesn’t mean that I am a “moral monster” ..

But even if I were a morally evil man , that has nothing to do with the OP, nor with any topic that has been discoursed in this thread.

 

[Sheldon]

By that logic, if you are having sex without protection, you are not taking appropriate measures to prevent pregnancy.

Well why one earth would anyone think otherwise?

 

[leroy]

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

I have responded (and quite successfully) to your “argument”

BEING something doesn’t makes you part of that thing, even if you are dependent, connected and share stuff with that thing………and the fact that you havenbt denied thisargument, strongly suggests that you agree with it.

Otherwise parasites would also be part of your body. You are just making an arbitrary exception with the fetus.

And my positive argument (that has been ignored) is

1 the fetus is an independent organism because it has his own DNA (different from the mother)

2 it´s a human because it has human DNA

3 IT´S a person because it has (or will have) consciousness.

 

[leroy]

Do yo

Present that doubt then? My evidence is above.


?

Do you really think that your argument shows beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus is not a person?

If you don’t answer with a clear and unabigous “YES” I will assume that your answer is “no”


Academics are divide don this issue, why isn’t this a good enough reason to think that there is no conclusive evidence on either side?

 

[Koldo]

I'm none the wiser sorry?

I was referring to resorting to accusations.

What can a rape victim do to prevent being raped?

How can a rape victim prevent what happens to them? Also you seem again to be suggesting these situations are remotely comparable, which they are not. Being lied to and being raped are not remotely comparable.

I have cut everything else on your post because all of it revolves around not understanding a central point of what I am stating.

I have been talking about MARITAL rape.
MARITAL rape happens when a spouse rapes the other one. As I have already stated before, one can never be a victim of MARITAL rape while single. Therefore staying single completely prevents all cases of MARITAL rape.

 

[KWED]

It is not even cherry picking or confirmation bias. If I come across a name for it I will let you know.

I said "better described as", not "It is".
As a keen pedant, I'm surprised you chose to ignore this.

Not at all. You are beating a strawman you have created yourself. I do accept your objections to the stawman you have created though.

Not understanding the implications of an argument is not the same thing as a straw man.

I agree. But this is completely different from stating stuff like: "It does inform the law on when abortion is legally acceptable, which involves the concept of when a foetus becomes a "person"."

With all due respect, it is basically the same idea, even though some of the words may be different.

 

[Sheldon]

I have responded (and quite successfully) to your “argument”

From bare unevidenced denial to bare unevidenced assertion, the self congratulatory tone is pretty funny though, given you ignored most of the fact, and simply denied the one or two you did mention.

BEING something doesn’t makes you part of that thing, even if you are dependent, connected and share stuff with that thing………

A repetition of your bare denial, one assumes your brain has all of those attributes, still if you insist that doesn't make it part of you then that is rather illuminating.

and the fact that you havenbt denied thisargument, strongly suggests that you agree with it.

You're insane of you think I haven't stated the exact opposite of your bare assertion, and offered evidence, but I'll give the post again then. (I've emboldened the part you just claimed I had not said, since you've inexplicably missed it several times.

The developing foetus 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 (1) attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

I've labelled each piece of separate evidence (8 separate points for you to address with expansive explanations, and not just bare denials), since you're clearly struggling to address them.

And my positive argument (that has been ignored) is

Sheldon
Another falsehood, as I've addressed your absurd claims here several times, but just for your edification then, I've answered then again here, in red so you won't miss them this time:

1 the fetus is an independent organism because it has his own DNA (different from the mother)

Sheldon (answer) Firstly it also has the mother's DNA, secondly my toenail clippings have unique DNA, and it's different from my mother's, are my toenail clippings a person then?.

2 it´s a human because it has human DNA

Sheldon (answer) Again then, my toenail clippings have HUMAN DNA, as does the hair I have cut off, and the skin cells I shed in the billions daily, are they each HUMAN individuals then? My god, it must be carnage each time I scratch myself, clip my nails, or get a haircut.

3 IT´S a person because it has (or will have) consciousness.

Sheldon So I'm a corpse then, because one day I will be dead? What a spectacularly stupid argument.

 

[Sheldon]

Academics are divide don this issue, why isn’t this a good enough reason to think that there is no conclusive evidence on either side?

Are you saying there is no conclusive evidence you can present that a blastocyst or foetus is a person? Only you have claimed the opposite, so now you just have a bare opinion, that explains a lot. Or are you now introducing this transparent attempt to falsely label my compelling evidence as some sort of absolute, because you know you've failed to address that evidence, and in order to dishonestly obfuscate, because you know have no answer beyond bare denials of that evidence?

Here again then is the evidence I presented, point by point so you can address each point individually with some intellectual integrity, for the first time:

The developing foetus 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 (1) attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

So lets see 8 cogent responses from you to that evidence, since I have done you the courtesy of addressing your bare claims point by point.

 

[Sheldon]

I was referring to resorting to accusations.

You mean like falsely accusing me of victim blaming, and even asserting my rationale meant rape victims would be somehow culpable, that kind of accusing?

I have cut everything else on your post because all of it revolves around not understanding a central point of what I am stating.

Great, now go back and the read the part where I explained that rape is rape, and that the rapist being married to the victim makes no difference whatsoever, legally or morally.

staying single completely prevents all cases of MARITAL rape.

What an absurd claim, but since you have spun us into yet another no true Scotsman, a man could avoid his wife lying to him by not getting married, he could also (even if married) take simple precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, unlike rape victims of course.

 

[Koldo]

You mean like falsely accusing me of victim blaming, and even asserting my rationale meant rape victims would be somehow culpable, that kind of accusing?

Great, now go back and the read the part where I explained that rape is rape, and that the rapist being married to the victim makes no difference whatsoever, legally or morally.

What an absurd claim, but since you have spun us into yet another no true Scotsman, a man could avoid his wife lying to him by not getting married, he could also (even if married) take simple precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, unlike rape victims of course.

What is absurd about that claim?
Explain HOW not getting married doesn't prevent MARITAL rape.

 

[Koldo]

I said "better described as", not "It is".
As a keen pedant, I'm surprised you chose to ignore this.

Not understanding the implications of an argument is not the same thing as a straw man.

You were not addressing the implications though. But merely what you wanted someone to have stated, just so you could easily beat it to the ground.

With all due respect, it is basically the same idea, even though some of the words may be different.

It is not!
It is one thing to say that the medical science aids the law making process and another to state it informs when personhood starts. The first one is true but the second one is not.