Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thana]

Thank you for showing how unreasonable your position is.

Acknowledging biology and bodily autonomy isn't unreasonable. But whatever you say, love.

 

[Thana]

I disagree with you about circumstances that involve the woman lying. I don't think it's right to force a man into a life that you've tricked him into. In this case I think the woman needs to take responsibility for her actions and either abort the fetus or know that she might have to take care of the baby herself.

Being a single mother is always a possibility.
No one is saying lying is a good thing, but justice isn't a given. Not even remotely.

 

[fantome profane]

No one. It isn't and that is why we humans have to work so hard to make sure it is? Or do you not try to make life fair?

Sure, but we need to be careful that our attempts to make life more fair for one party does not make life less fair for someone else. The attempt here to be more fair to the father ends up being much less fair to the child. If the father can waive responsibility the end result is less fair, not more.

 

[Mister Emu]

Suck it up, and let women have the right to do what they want with their bodies and the little parasites growing inside them.

Only in an abortion debate do you see offspring called parasites...

 

[Thanda]

Sure, but we need to be careful that our attempts to make life more fair for one party does not make life less fair for someone else. The attempt here to be more fair to the father ends up being much less fair to the child. If the father can waive responsibility the end result is less fair, not more.

Indeed but in my ideal world no one would be allowed to have waive their responsibility towards a child - including women. I support abortion for medical reasons and rape but I do not support lifestyle abortions.

I am merely looking for consistency, if a man is not allowed to waive responsibility for a child (unborn) then neither should the woman be able to. If a women can waive responsibility for an unborn child (through abortion) then we should allow means for men to be able to as well.

 

[Thana]

Only in an abortion debate do you see offspring called parasites...

In what way is an unwanted fetus not a parasite?

 

[Thanda]

Only in an abortion debate do you see offspring called parasites...

Precisely - the same people who would go on about the need to save dolphins they have no relation to would happily dehumanise unborn babies in order to justify killing them.

 

[Thana]

Precisely - the same people who would go on the need to save dolphins they have no relation to would happily dehumanise unborn babies in order to justify killing them.

Well dolphins are good for the world. The one thing the world doesn't need is more humans.

 

[Thanda]

Well dolphins are good for the world. The one thing the world doesn't need is more humans.

You keep proving my point - I'm glad I'm not on your side of the abortion debate.

 

[fantome profane]

Indeed but in my ideal world no one would be allowed to have waive their responsibility towards a child - including women. I support abortion for medical reasons and rape but I do not support lifestyle abortions.

I am merely looking for consistency, if a man is not allowed to waive responsibility for a child (unborn) then neither should the woman be able to. If a women can waive responsibility for an unborn child (through abortion) then we should allow means for men to be able to as well.

I understand, but it is all about balancing rights. To deny the choice to the mother before birth potentially places an extreme burden on the mother, not for the sake of a child, but for a fetus.

Let me ask you this. If you support a woman's right to abortion in the case of rape, does a man also have the right to have the child aborted if he is raped? You brought in hypothetical scenarios about stolen dna, consider this. I am not talking about waiving financial responsibility, but a actually ending the pregnancy. You support abortion in the case of rape for a woman, but what if the man was raped?

The problem you have is insisting on perfect consistency in an imperfect inconsistent world. Nature is not consistent. The position of the man and the woman are not the same. To treat them like they were the same would not be fair.

 

[Madhuri]

In what way is an unwanted fetus not a parasite?

But that isn't the point being made.

 

[Thana]

You keep proving my point - I'm glad I'm not on your side of the abortion debate.

And I'm glad that no matter how much you complain, pregnant women in my country can still legally go out and get an abortion if they wanted too.

We all have things to be glad about.

 

[Thana]

But that isn't the point being made.

No, but it's still a valid question, I think anyhow.

 

[Thanda]

I understand, but it is all about balancing rights. To deny the choice to the mother before birth potentially places an extreme burden on the mother, not for the sake of a child, but for a fetus.

The man would also be waiving responsibility for the fetus. It would be the women's choice and responsibility to make the fetus a child.

Let me ask you this. If you support a woman's right to abortion in the case of rape, does a man also have the right to have the child aborted if he is raped? You brought in hypothetical scenarios about stolen dna, consider this. I am not talking about waiving financial responsibility, but a actually ending the pregnancy. You support abortion in the case of rape for a woman, but what if the man was raped?

The critical issue is who must raise this child if it gets born? That is why women get abortions - it's not because it is hard being pregnant, but it is because it is hard and inconvenient raising a child. So that is the critical issue. So women are able to avoid having to raise a child by having an abortion (which is an artificial allowance we have given them). On the other hand we have given nothing for men to avoid having to raise a child they do not want.

So to answer your question it would be irrelevant what the woman who raped a man decided to do with the baby. The man would have the right to waive responsibility for raising the baby and the woman would have to decide whether she wanted to carry the baby to term or not.

The problem you have is insisting on perfect consistency in an imperfect inconsistent world. Nature is not consistent. The position of the man and the woman are not the same. To treat them like they were the same would not be fair.

Elective abortion is not natural. A woman cannot think a baby away. If she just goes on her normal life a baby will likely develop to full term. It requires an active and sometimes dangerous effort to actually kill the baby.

 

[Thanda]

And I'm glad that no matter how much you complain, pregnant women in my country can still legally go out and get an abortion if they wanted too.

We all have things to be glad about.

And yet that wasn't even the point of this thread. The point was to check for people's moral, intellectual and logical consistency. You have failed all three tests.

 

[Willamena]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.

That's not, in my opinion, practically, any reasoning that makes them less than human. That reasoning can only stand where "being" stands.

Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

I would support abortions in any circumstance that the mother required, in favour of the autonomy of a person. The latter isn't an abortion.

 

[Thanda]

I would support abortions in any circumstance, if favour of the autonomy of a person.

So you support abortion simply because its possible?

 

[Thana]

And yet that wasn't even the point of this thread. The point was to check for people's moral, intellectual and logical consistency. You have failed all three tests.

No, I've failed your standards. Which I'm perfectly content with. I don't want to be like you or think like you, Because despite how you believe you're morally superior the truth is you're ignorant and selfish and you don't really think about the consequences of your words and actions and how they negatively affect the lives of others. It's your way or the highway, And I respect God and the free will He gave us too much to ever think like you.

 

[Thanda]

No, I've failed your standards. Which I'm perfectly content with. I don't want to be like you or think like you, Because despite how you believe you're morally superior the truth is you're ignorant and selfish and you don't really think about the consequences of your words and actions and how they negatively affect the lives of others. It's your way or the highway, And I respect God and the free will He gave us too much to ever think like you.

Yes, throughout this conversation you've shown how much you really care about unborn babies and their fathers.

 

[Willamena]

So you support abortion simply because its possible?

Um, no. I support it because of the autonomy of a person. I thought I said that.

That it's possible is incidental.