Men and Abortion

[Fool]

If abortion is murder, is it still "trespass of civil rights"?

Can you name another civil right other than self-defense where your civil right means another could die? For example, I try to murder you and you defend yourself and I die.

If you tie it to self-defense, is the baby a parasite? A predator? Or is it a child? A blessing?

foetus don't have civil rights. until believers came along trying to give them such. a belief is not an actual thing; until it can be observed and has sentience

 

[Fool]

If abortion is murder, is it still "trespass of civil rights"?

Can you name another civil right other than self-defense where your civil right means another could die? For example, I try to murder you and you defend yourself and I die.

If you tie it to self-defense, is the baby a parasite? A predator? Or is it a child? A blessing?

potential is not actual. its basic and common language. you're trying to mangle the language to prove your belief is real. your belief is nothing but a belief. there is no proof. otherwise you provide irrefutable proof.

you're spreading a belief as a truth. this is how chaos ensues

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Abortion should be a choice of both partners. If it's not it is more than likely the father has done a runner anyway. No double standards involved, just facts of life and reality.

If no abortion then the father needs to take responsibility, no force, just the morality of the situation.

You seem to be painting double standards for either something you don't really understand or a rare occurrence.

Don't talk rubbish. Any choice people want the father to take THEIR SHARE of the responsibility.

Why can the mother walk away from responsibility but not the father?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What? How would a guy take care of an aborted fetus? Please, oh please explain.

I have no idea. I am not sure what you are talking about. Here:

Mother gets to choose if she wants to take care of a baby
Father does not get to choose if he wants to take care of a baby.

Why would you force the father to take care of a baby but not the mother?

 

[Revoltingest]

Abortion should be a choice of both partners.

For the father, an unenforceable choice isn't a real choice.
The father may advocate for either course, but has no
legal standing. Abortion is solely the mother's choice.

Moreover, the choice of financial support for a child is up
to the mother, either to pursue a non-supporting father
for money or not. The mother also has the option of giving
up the child for adoption, & relinquishing all financial burdens.

I'm not saying this is right. It's just how things play out
under our laws for many mothers & fathers I know.

 

[ChristineM]

Why can the mother walk away from responsibility but not the father?

Can they?

Seems the other way round to me but i am not repeating the rational. It seems your mind is set

 

[ChristineM]

I have no idea. I am not sure what you are talking about. Here:

Mother gets to choose if she wants to take care of a baby
Father does not get to choose if he wants to take care of a baby.

Why would you force the father to take care of a baby but not the mother?

Wrong. Mother is forced to look after the baby, man often enough does a runner

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Firstly, no one's right to life ought to supercede another person's right to bodily autonomy. Unless you'd like me to use some of your organs against your will to keep me alive?

That is apples and oranges. I have no moral obligation to take care of your body with my organs. I did not create the situation. If you chose to have sex that led to a new life then you have a moral obligation to not actively kill it and use your body to keep the life alive. Men and women make decisions to have sex, they have a moral responsibility to take care of a baby that resulted form their actions.

Secondly, if you believe in a right to life, that ought to continue after people are born as well. Universal healthcare. Guaranteed paid maternity leave. Universal pre-K. Getting vaccinated to prevent millions of people from dying in a pandemic. Opposing the death penalty. The list goes on. If you're pro-life and not just pro-birth, be about it. I wait with baited breath.

So you know my stance on these issues? These are not what it means to be pro life anyway. It is a label for people that are against abortion. What if I said you were not prochoice because you are not for states choosing their own abortion laws or you are not for the father choosing to not take care of the baby. It is a dishonest debate tactic.

They don't think abortion is a constitutional right.

Why?

All 200+ pages of legalese? Of course not, I have a life and I'm not a lawyer. Have you?

No, but I have read the important parts with help from summaries of legal experts. It is not hard to understand their reasoning. It is valid and based on the constitution and law as I understand it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

a representative can't represent every aspect of an individual voter's conscience. this is why it should be a general vote and not representative of the mass.

psychologically/mature people don't live in potentials. they live in reality. there is the problem. fear of things that might exist are fears that don't actually exist. there is a difference in an actual act and the potential of an act.

Does a fetus actually have a 40%+ chance of becoming a person if left in the womb?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

morals are based on individual beliefs and because of culture. what is moral for you might not be moral to another. so basically you're trying to moralize your intent of controlling a potential that doesn't exist. what is more heinous is you're doing this with someone else's autonomy to choose their moral path based on individual circumstances. so you're going to punish an actual being for a potential/possible being.

Yes morals are individual beliefs, this is why we need to discuss these issues. The potential does exist. Like I already asked, Does a fetus have a 40%+ chance of becoming a person if left in the womb?

that is seriously messed up because the judgement is based on a belief and not an actual proof.

I have good evidence that fetuses do become people when left in teh womb at a greater than 40% chance.

people who murder someone, murder other actual, living human beings. they don't murder potential humans.

really? Do you know that in many states such as California, if you kill a pregnant woman you get charged with 2 counts of homicide.

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.

State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women

if we start criminalizing potentials, no one is safe

See above.

 

[Left Coast]

That is apples and oranges. I have no moral obligation to take care of your body with my organs. I did not create the situation. If you chose to have sex that led to a new life then you have a moral obligation to not actively kill it and use your body to keep the life alive. Men and women make decisions to have sex, they have a moral responsibility to take care of a baby that resulted form their actions.

No, with respect, they don't. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Sex is not simply for procreation. This is a fundamental problem with conservative sexual ethics. Sex is not merely about making babies. Pregnancy ought not be a punishment for naughty sexual behavior enforced by the state.

Secondly, if you actually believe what you just said, then you believe child support from dad should begin at conception, yes?

And thirdly, you believe that anyone who didn't consent to sex should be able to abort, yes?

So you know my stance on these issues?

If they're anything close to the standard conservative positions, then yes I have a generally good idea. But go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

These are not what it means to be pro life anyway. It is a label for people that are against abortion. What if I said you were not prochoice because you are not for states choosing their own abortion laws or you are not for the father choosing to not take care of the baby. It is a dishonest debate tactic.

It isn't dishonest to point out that antiabortion claims to be all about promotion of the right to life only extend to birth.

As for choice, states aren't people. Fathers can choose to take care of their babies - but not by forcing the mother to have her body used against her will to do so.

No, but I have read the important parts with help from summaries of legal experts. It is not hard to understand their reasoning. It is valid and based on the constitution and law as I understand it.

I've also read summaries of the decision, and the dissent. Now what? If you have an argument to make, make it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That's your personal opinion. Settled law, ie, stare
decisis, is foundational in our law. It avoids frequent
reversals that would leave us continuously unsure of
what's legal or not.

Stare decisis does not mean there can be no change.
But change must meet (ideally) high hurdles, lest the
law be a continually moving target that the populace
cannot anticipate.

How did this decision violate this principle?

That too is your personal opinion.
Roughly half the country disagrees
No one has "The Truth" about this.

True, this is why each state should decide for themselves what abortion laws they want since it is not defined in the constitution.

Motives don't matter to you perhaps because
you like the result. But to those of us who see
a concerted effort to stack the court with fundies
who'd impose their minority view, it's a theocratic
coup. This means taking steps to mitigate &
prevent such mischief.

What did the republicans/Trump do that was not lawful in picking justices? How did they orchestrate the openings to the court?

 

[Fool]

Does a fetus actually have a 40%+ chance of becoming a person if left in the womb?

there are no absolutes in life or science. you're even ignoring sound and responsible research

again a belief is not something to be practiced upon someone else. practical, applicable common sense isn't something of belief.


you're trying your best to make a dreamy, wonderful outcome from a terrible situation. this isn't a win, win situation. this is going to negatively impact both the mother and the child; if it makes it out of the womb. either financially, physically, and/or spiritually.


how does that empower anyone other than those trying to control other people?

 

[ChristineM]

For the father, an unenforceable choice isn't a real choice.

He made the choice when he spilled his seed

The father may advocate for either course, but has no legal standing. Abortion is solely the mother's choice.

.

The mother has to carry the fetus. It is often the case that the father has done a runner or denies any responsibility which is the driver for so many abortions. However if the father is sticking around then the choice should be a joint decision. There is also the case where the father insists on abortion and uses psychological pressure or even violence to force the issue.

Moreover, the choice of financial support for a child is up
to the mother, either to pursue a non-supporting father
for money or not

Oh no, surely not, let the absconding seed producer get away with it

The mother also has the option of giving
up the child for adoption, & relinquishing all financial burdens.

In a joint relationship the decision is (or should be) equal. In the case of the absconding father, what's the problem?

I'm not saying this is right. It's just how things play out
under our laws for many mothers & fathers I know

Ok

 

[ChristineM]

I have no idea. I am not sure what you are talking about. Here:

Mother gets to choose if she wants to take care of a baby
Father does not get to choose if he wants to take care of a baby.

Why would you force the father to take care of a baby but not the mother?

I am talking about the case of abortio

If father spilled the seed then he has mo choice other than running away. I don't see why you have a problem with this. Or perhaps i am simply not understanding what you are saying.

As i said the mother is forced to take care of the baby. It do you think they are just dropped in the gutter?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Can they?

Yes, by having an abortion.

Seems the other way round to me but i am not repeating the rational. It seems your mind is set

You are not understanding what I have said.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Wrong. Mother is forced to look after the baby, man often enough does a runner

No, the mother can have an abortion.

 

[ChristineM]

No, the mother can have an abortion.

Yes and the father can force an abortion.

Or the mother and father can agree on an abortion

Or the father can run away and not want any input in the decision.

And in the end the mother carries the fetus, it is her body

However an abortion os becoming more difficult in the US which is going to see the results of its narrow sightedness with more unwanted children, more absentee fathers

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, with respect, they don't. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

In reality that is a possible outcome of having sex.

Sex is not simply for procreation. This is a fundamental problem with conservative sexual ethics. Sex is not merely about making babies. Pregnancy ought not be a punishment for naughty sexual behavior enforced by the state.

I agree sex is not just for procreation. However, one of the actual possibilities of sex is a child. If you decide to have sex and a child is created you are morally obligated to take care of that baby.

Secondly, if you actually believe what you just said, then you believe child support from dad should begin at conception, yes?

I agree they need to help with healthcare etc.

And thirdly, you believe that anyone who didn't consent to sex should be able to abort, yes?

That is a special case and a different discussion.

If they're anything close to the standard conservative positions, then yes I have a generally good idea. But go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

It isn't dishonest to point out that antiabortion claims to be all about promotion of the right to life only extend to birth.

It is a dishonest tactic. It like telling me I am prochoice because I am an atheist. One has nothing to do with the other. They are different issues with different ethical considerations.

As for choice, states aren't people. Fathers can choose to take care of their babies - but not by forcing the mother to have her body used against her will to do so.

If she chose to have sex then it was not against her will. How many men and women do not understand that sex can lead to pregnancy? Are women not capable of understanding this in your view?

I've also read summaries of the decision, and the dissent. Now what? If you have an argument to make, make it.

I have asked you why you think they made the wrong decision.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

there are no absolutes in life or science. you're even ignoring sound and responsible research.

How so? This compiled research shows about 37% of fertilizations make it to birth.

Spontaneous abortion in humans

you're trying your best to make a dreamy, wonderful outcome from a terrible situation. this isn't a win, win situation. this is going to negatively impact both the mother and the child; if it makes it out of the womb. either financially, physically, and/or spiritually.

Sure, what makes it ethical to abort the unborn? Do financial concerns trump the right to life of the unborn?

how does that empower anyone other than those trying to control other people?

Empower who for what?