Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[ppp]

Granted, but in the case of pregnancy the "donation " was already made.

You dont have the legal right (nor the moral right) to donate a part of your body then repeat and kill the beneficiary of that donation.

For example once you donated a kidney, you can't repent and kill the beneficiary of your kidney..........so why making an arbitrary exception with pregnancy?

I contend that if I am hooked up to that coma patient filtering his blood cause his kidneys have shut down, that I can stand up and walk away whenever I choose to.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant.

 

[leroy]

I contend that if I am hooked up to that coma patient filtering his blood cause his kidneys have shut down, that I can stand up and walk away whenever I choose to.

For the analogy to be correct you would have to add:
1 you killed te patient, you crushed his head (killing is different from walking away and let die)

2 you created this mess of dependency, the other man is dependent on you , because of you. (You signed a paper where you allowed and agree for such state of dependency)


.... given these 2 extra points there is no doubt that you don't have the right to kill the patient.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant.

Irrelevant, I can agree with those statements....so what ? .... how does that justify the killing of an innocent human.?

 

[nPeace]

That's the period in which the portion of the brain responsible for the management of feelings, thought process and decision making, the cortex, is developing. If you cannot walk without legs, you cannot process emotions, feelings, sensations and thoughts in any recognizable and human way without those part of your brain.

No, but a fetus isn't unconscious either. It's without consciousness. It's not under a lapse of consciousness. It never had one to begin with. Iy doesn't have a will, desires, hopes, dreams, feelings or sensations of any kind (at least not in early stage of development). An unconscious person does. I would also like to mention that it's illegal to render a person completely unconscious without their consent and that consent is conditional to the actions you are about to commit.

Can you please post a link to the verifiable data, which demonstrates that a fetus has no feeling, or is not conscious "during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation"?
Clearly not.
I guess you think making assertions because you can serves a useful purpose on forums.
I doubt anyone comes on a forum just to hear people's story-telling.
Easier to go to the Fairy Tales Library.

One more question. Rather, two.
Why do Atheist believe that posting their beliefs as fact is cool?
Does doing so not reveal a desperate desire to believe anything one would rather believe?
Scientists have beliefs as well, but they are not too proud to say probably. .. or seem to, or may be... etc.

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life
... Human fetuses seem to already have some limited control on their body, as they react to touch, sound, smell, and pain, and even show facial expressions responding to external stimuli (Lowery et al., 2007). Some researchers (Lagercrantz and Changeux, 2009), though, believe that these reactions may have subcortical non-conscious origin and that, only shortly after birth, newborns show signs of basic self-awareness. In fact, developmental studies provide evidence about infant behaviors displaying some level of self-awareness in their first weeks of life (Rochat, 2011). ...

Pride and arrogance is really disgusting. Ugh.

 

[epronovost]

Can you please post a link to the verifiable data, which demonstrates that a fetus has The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life
... Human fetuses seem to already have some limited control on their body, as they react to touch, sound, smell, and pain, and even show facial expressions responding to external stimuli (Lowery et al., 2007). Some researchers (Lagercrantz and Changeux, 2009), though, believe that these reactions may have subcortical non-conscious origin and that, only shortly after birth, newborns show signs of basic self-awareness. In fact, developmental studies provide evidence about infant behaviors displaying some level of self-awareness in their first weeks of life (Rochat, 2011). ...

Pride and arrogance is really disgusting. Ugh.

I'd just like you to note that in your last bolded sentence it refers to infants not fetuses, so born babies, and in the first weeks of life as in after their birth. The other study you quoted specifically mentions that in utero, fetuses aren't conscious if only because they are in a sedated state. So even, if they are the anatomical structure to accomplish a function of consciousness like let say hear, they don't. So no, the sources you quote do not support the idea that fetus prior to 24 week old, let alone between 6 and 12 weeks old where over 90% of elective abortions occurs, have any form of consciousness. What is certain, is that prior to 24 week of gestation, a fetus doesn't have a cortex and that prior to 12 weeks it's spinal nerves aren't even all developed.

 

[ppp]

For the analogy to be correct you would have to add:
1 you killed te patient, you crushed his head (killing is different from walking away and let die

Uh huh. So if you have a cesarian and leave it on the bed, just like the coma patient, then you are good with it? No, of course you're not. Don't throw gore at me to try and make me concede the point when your position is not dependent upon how much gore there is. Grossing someone out is not a valid argument, let alone the sound one.

2 you created this mess of dependency, the other man is dependent on you , because of you. (You signed a paper where you allowed and agree for such state of dependency)
So what?

.... given these 2 extra points there is no doubt that you don't have the right to kill the patient.

I can get up any time and walk my spooty butt away for any reason I please. Or for no reason at all. There are no hospital papers to sign that say I have to support someone else with my life. None.

Irrelevant, I can agree with those statements....so what ? .... how does that justify the killing of an innocent human.?

What does innocence have to do with anything? You are just throwing in random non-sequiturs. If the fetus went on a 10 state killing spree that would have no bearing on the morality or immorality of abortion.

I don't have to justify it. A woman, or anyone else gets to decide whether or not they are going to use their body to support the life of someone else. Period.

 

[nPeace]

I'd just like you to note that in your last bolded sentence it refers to infants not fetuses, so born babies, and in the first weeks of life as in after their birth. The other study you quoted specifically mentions that in utero, fetuses aren't conscious if only because they are in a sedated state. So even, if they are the anatomical structure to accomplish a function of consciousness like let say hear, they don't. So no, the sources you quote do not support the idea that fetus prior to 24 week old, let alone between 6 and 12 weeks old where over 90% of elective abortions occurs, have any form of consciousness. What is certain, is that prior to 24 week of gestation, a fetus doesn't have a cortex and that prior to 12 weeks it's spinal nerves aren't even all developed.

Why do you think I edited it? I notice.
Please note that no data concludes your assertion. They are all assumptions - propositions of fallible men.

Edit.
@epronovost also note that this is not about consciousness - but life.
One does not need to be conscious, to be alive.

 

[nPeace]

@epronovost I will provide at least three different sources which contradict the views and opinions you prefer.
#1

 

[epronovost]

Why do you think I edited it? I notice.
Please note that no data concludes your assertion. They are all assumptions - propositions of fallible men.

Development processes are not assumptions. It's not an assumption that ay 15 weeks of gestation the cortex isn't developed and its not an assumption either that pain and sensory signals are treated by this part of the brain else shutting it down via anesthesia (or if you wanted to be very extreme and make it permanent lobotomy) wouldn't work and it does.

Edit.
@epronovost also note that this is not about consciousness - but life.
One does not need to be conscious, to be alive.

I don't believe that the fact that fetus and embryo are alive has any relevance. The moral principles that make abortion a morally defensible action is that it doesn't break the no harm axiom of morality while forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will while easy, simple and effective means to stop exist does break it. Since early in their development fetuses aren't conscious and can't feel anything, they cannot be harmed anymore than moss can be harmed, while an adult woman obviously can.

 

[nPeace]

Development processes are not assumptions. It's not an assumption that ay 15 weeks of gestation the cortex isn't developed and its not an assumption either that pain and sensory signals are treated by this part of the brain else shutting it down via anesthesia (or if you wanted to be very extreme and make it permanent lobotomy) wouldn't work and it does.



I don't believe that the fact that fetus and embryo are alive has any relevance. The moral principles that make abortion a morally defensible action is that it doesn't break the no harm axiom of morality while forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will while easy, simple and effective means to stop exist does break it. Since early in their development fetuses aren't conscious and can't feel anything, they cannot be harmed anymore than moss can be harmed, while an adult woman obviously can.

In that case, it's an ethical issue, because you are saying that murder is only morally wrong, based on certain conditions - consciousness being a factor. So since a sleeping man won't feel a thing, or even an awake man heavily sedated, it's okay to murder him, because you cause him no harm.
That's basically your argument.
Get rid of anything you don't like, as long as it feels no pain. You don't harm it.

 

[nPeace]

Development processes are not assumptions. It's not an assumption that ay 15 weeks of gestation the cortex isn't developed and its not an assumption either that pain and sensory signals are treated by this part of the brain else shutting it down via anesthesia (or if you wanted to be very extreme and make it permanent lobotomy) wouldn't work and it does.

#2
Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain
Unborn babies can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation or earlier
A comprehensive review of the scientific literature[1] including neural development, psychology of pain sensation, and moral implications of fetal pain, concludes that unborn babies may experience pain as early as 12 weeks.
The review notes that neural connections from periphery to brain are functionally complete after 18 weeks.
“Nevertheless, we no longer view fetal pain (as a core, immediate, sensation) in a gestational window of 12–24 weeks as impossible based on the neuroscience.”
The review points out that a fetus may not experience pain in the same way as an adult, but does indeed experience pain as a real sensation, and that this pain experience has moral implications.
Significant because this unbiased review of the scientific evidence and agreement on existence of fetal pain, as early as 12 weeks and certainly after 18 weeks, comes from two highly credentialed medical professionals, one pro-choice.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Good topic Leroy. Very interesting.

My personal opinion is that IF abortion rights are to be given, as a right to do it, it should only be given to the woman because it's her body.

Men can request only. But that's just my personal opinion.

 

[firedragon]

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

This one I completely disagree. You cant go make people pregnant and abandon them. This is your responsibility. And the woman has all the right to not kill her child if that's her perception.

If one cant face up to responsibility he can stay a hermit.

 

[blü 2]

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?

In reproduction women do all the work, and very much the greater portion of infant care.

So (keeping it simple) I say the last word is the woman's ─ though if the relationship is ongoing, it would be ordinary courtesy to hear the male out.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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?

No, because yhe decisions about parenthood don't affect men and women equally. It's not fair and it's not equitable, but there it is.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

Abortion should be illegal unless both parents agree.

Doctors must keep fetuses alive if they are aborted, but that means damage (perhaps blind, malformed, etc.) So, abortion should only be allowed before a fetus is viable (can't be born alive).

Abortion shouldn't be used in lieu of a condom.

I don't know how one should decide in cases of rape. On the one hand, it is murder to abort, while, it seems very unfair to raise a rapist's baby.

We must consider the concept of "potential life." for example, we reach into a womb and cut off the arms of an unborn fetus, that fetus would be born without arms (yet, it originally had the potential to have arms). Aborting it is destroying potential life.

Every sperm (and there are millions of them) has potential for fertilizing an egg, yet, they are wasted.

The Women's Lib movement insists that women should have control over their own bodies, so, they argue that women should be allowed to abort. But, should women have control of their own bodies after a child is born too? That is, instead of gently taking care of an infant, shouldn't women be allowed to toss their little poop machines out of a skyscraper? At some point, we have to realize that women (and men) have a responsibility to raise kids, and I think also a responsibility to give birth to them once they are pregnant (under normal circumstances....not sure about rape, as I mentioned).

Some men go from woman to woman, enjoying sex, and not caring about the cost of raising kids, or the responsibility of fathering them. This puts the entire burden of raising kids in the hands of women. For that, women should be given greater control (somehow). But, there should be laws requiring that men be identified as fathers (perhaps a DNA test), and that should force them to be fathers (or at least pay for their kid's upbringing (clothes, tuition, food). The government shouldn't have to pay money for moms with 20 kids from 20 dads. The repsonsibility to pay should be on the one who caused the need to pay.

Deadbeat dads create welfare women, and society has to pay what the dads are unwilling to pay.

In the war in Iraq, many women were raped by US soldiers. Some bred (didn't often marry) voluntarily. They ended up with half-breed kids in a nation that shuns half-breeds, and in a nation that doesn't have provisions for deadbeat dads. In their culture, dads are forced to marry and raise kids, so there is no such thing as a fatherless child (except for the many dads that were blown up by US missiles and tanks). In trying to track down deadbeat dad soldiers, the US denies that they fathered anyone, and hides the records. Things could get very upsetting if records of soldiers fatherking kids abroad reached stateside brides.

The Christian religion should not impose its views on those of different faiths. The Constitution is supposed to maintain the separation of Church and State.

 

[Clara Tea]

In reproduction women do all the work, and very much the greater portion of infant care.

So (keeping it simple) I say the last word is the woman's ─ though if the relationship is ongoing, it would be ordinary courtesy to hear the male out.

Lets say that a man and a woman have a beautiful cute son. The government should be able to use your logic to execute the child. After all, if the child no longer lives, there is no longer any work to do.

 

[Clara Tea]

This is an interesting thread.

I kind of changed my view.

A man needs to "man up" and take some financial responsibility for the result of his actions, in this situation.

I'm glad I will not have sex outside of marriage again. I also don't think my kind should be reproducing.

Not all are called to have sex. I have strong suspicion I am one of them.

True, a man should man up. However, in this case, the government (not the man) should insist that kids are taken care of. A man should not have the right to go from woman to woman fathering kids out of wedlock.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think i answered those but i will rephrase them for you

The male was complicit in causing the pregnancy he should therefore take responsibility for his actions. Whether that is being a part of the decision to abort the child or help financially and morally support the child.

The woman has no choice in that obligation assuming no abortion

Current law says that the man's DNA is protected by privacy laws. I don't think that it should be since the government would have to pay welfare and food stamps if the father doesn't man up and pay.

The woman (unless raped) had a choice in the conception (unless the condom broke). But, even if a condom broke, all parties should realize that such accidents "might" occur.

I think that we should pay for and teach sex education in schools (and classes for those out of school). Generallly, in poor neighborhoods, there are mothers nursing babies in their sex education classes (too late for intervention of education). The education should warn them about the spread of venereal diseases, how to recognize them, how to prevent them (vasoline likely would not help). Teens should be aware that ejac. is not necessary, so pulling out early might not prevent pregnancy. Many teens think that if they pull out early, they can't make a baby.

Condoms should be available free for all to prevent STDs (like AIDS), and prevent pregnancies. Opponents say (I think incorrectly) that condoms condone intercourse.

 

[Clara Tea]

Already mentioned, its it not always possible to say no.

Though there are instances of rape, in most cases it is possible to say no.

 

[Clara Tea]

No. Birthing a baby is no small medical impact on the human having it, and that impact effects income, and income effects wellbeing. Someone has to help provide financial assistance to ensure a child (and mother's) wellbeing, both in terms of medical care, and the various needs related to raising a child in the 21st century.

That financial burden rightly should be the father's, not the government's.