NationStates Jolt Archive

We just finished a unit on abortion in health class, and one kid brought up a good point; As a man will never give birth, get pregnant, have to deal with all the issues of pregnancy (other than a temperamental wife), ect., should males be able to vote on or decide on the legality of abortion?

I leave the floor open to debate.

no.

He'll have responsibilty for the child, if born, to support it, so most certainly.

No, because I don't believe in voting.

He'll have responsibilty for the child, if born, to support it, so most certainly.

I'm with him on this.

yes

No. It's one of those places that life's unfair for sure. But it's the woman's body, so it's her choice.

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?

Yes. If you ban men from voting on the legality of abortion then you'll have to deal with the whiners who say "I don't have children so I shouldn't be taxed to pay for schools" or "I have health insurance so I shouldn't be taxed to pay for the NHS. The point is that we all live in the same society and even laws which don't affect us directly tend to affect us indirectly: free education provides an educated workforce which allows you to get a good job, free health care means that there'll be less infectious people on the streets so you'll be healthier, and legalised abortion leads to a lower crime rate.

For the record I'm 100% pro-choice.

No, because I don't believe in voting.

^ What he said. ^

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?
Aye, this.

And you'd hope that in any sensible relationship both parties' opinion on the matter would be considered.

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?I agree completely.

Yes, men should be able to vote on this matter. They are affected by the child decisions of their girlfriends and such, not only that but given that the majority of opposition to abortion comes from some form of moral belief, it would ultimately go against a democratic principle to disallow people from opposing what they see as evil.

A study in human "thought":

Here we have purely ignorant spewing:

No. It's one of those places that life's unfair for sure. But it's the woman's body, so it's her choice.

Here we have some semblance of rational thought:

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?

However, I will add that if a man is to be held responsible for child support et al., he should damn well have a say in the abortion decision.

Of course he has the right.

Law abides the man to pay the kids raising and to pay his mother even if the two are not a couple anymore.

If you end all the ties between the father and the kid, then no. But if you have to pay just because the woman got pregnant, you must have the right to choose abortion or not.

Yes.

I think it's a woman's prerogative to have an abortion if she wishes. However, I do not accept that the consequences of this decision (particularly legal ones such as child support) should follow without input from affected men.

No; no one should be able to vote on the legitimacy of human rights.

Yes.

I think it's a woman's prerogative to have an abortion if she wishes. However, I do not accept that the consequences of this decision (particularly legal ones such as child support) should follow without input from affected men.

and if the man desperately wanted the child she chose to abort? what consequence should there be from that?

No; no one should be able to vote on the legitimacy of human rights.

Whyever not?

and if the man desperately wanted the child she chose to abort? what consequence should there be from that?

I'd take it on a case by case basis, but in principle? None.

Law abides the man to pay the kids raising and to pay his mother even if the two are not a couple anymore.

pffft...jsut because laws say he has to pay child support doesn't mean he will.


If you end all the ties between the father and the kid, then no. But if you have to pay just because the woman got pregnant, you must have the right to choose abortion or not.

Sure a man has the right to choose abortion...but it's not his body therefore its ultimately not his decision to make.

A study in human "thought":

Here we have purely ignorant spewing:



Here we have some semblance of rational thought:



However, I will add that if a man is to be held responsible for child support et al., he should damn well have a say in the abortion decision.

What exactly is your problem?

It's a binary proposition. It really doesn't need further explaining.

and if the man desperately wanted the child she chose to abort? what consequence should there be from that?

Whoa...finally someone who agrees with me on this (I think). Two people consent to sex. The woman gets pregnant. Now, the guy is willing to care for the child for (at least) 18 years. The woman wants to abort instead of spending nine months pregnant and giving birth. They both consented to the act that got them to this point, right? Why should the man's wishes simply be cast aside if he's willing to raise the child himself, especially if, were the situation reversed (i.e., he doesn't want the child, but she carries it to term anyway), he's responsible for supporting the child? Perfect example of hypocrisy.

No; no one should be able to vote on the legitimacy of human rights.Well yes, but we are voting on abortion, aren't we? So, yeah, while you're philosophically correct, that isn't helping much in actual real life.
Then again, acquiescing to "that's how things are" is probably not very helpful either, so I'm left stumped.

No. Her body, her choice. I may be able to advise, if she asks, but it's ultimately her decision.

I'd take it on a case by case basis, but in principle? None.

can you come up with a case that would have some consequence?

No. Her body, her choice. I may be able to advise, if she asks, but it's ultimately her decision.

I almost hope you impregnate some woman you don't give two shits about, who then tags your ass for child support. It'll be amusing to see you change your tune.

can you come up with a case that would have some consequence?

Surrogacy.

Whoa...finally someone who agrees with me on this (I think). Two people consent to sex. The woman gets pregnant. Now, the guy is willing to care for the child for (at least) 18 years. The woman wants to abort instead of spending nine months pregnant and giving birth. They both consented to the act that got them to this point, right? Why should the man's wishes simply be cast aside if he's willing to raise the child himself, especially if, were the situation reversed (i.e., he doesn't want the child, but she carries it to term anyway), he's responsible for supporting the child? Perfect example of hypocrisy.

Ah. So I'm ignorant because I don't share your POV. Got it.

pffft...jsut because laws say he has to pay child support doesn't mean he will.



Sure a man has the right to choose abortion...but it's not his body therefore its ultimately not his decision to make.


1. Of course, but he is suposed to, and may get arrested if not.

2. We are dealing about legalizing abortion or not, not enforcing it.

Anyway, in my opinion, if the couple doesn have a concrete relationship, if the guy dont want the kid, he shouldnt be enforced to pay anything.

If you want to say "its her body, her choice" then dont make the guy pay because she forgot to take the pill.

He'll have responsibilty for the child, if born, to support it, so most certainly.

That's tough, quite frankly. That's the sort of responsibility a man embarks upon when he gets a woman knocked up. It's a before and after type of responsibility, but the in-between is completely up to the woman. That is, until men become physically able to carry a child to term.

At which point, his body, his choice.

Well yes, but we are voting on abortion, aren't we?

Yes, and men are voting on it, too, and that's not going to stop.

So while I am indeed stating a principle that will likely never be achieved, at least I am doing so in response to a question that clearly was purely hypothetical.

I almost hope you impregnate some woman you don't give two shits about, who then tags your ass for child support. It'll be amusing to see you change your tune.

Not really. Assuming I do make a mistake like that, I'd probably own up to it. If she decided to get an abortion, great. If not, I'll deal with the consequences.

The way the question is stated, yes everyone gets to vote on legal issues. If the question was meant to be, At the time of the abortion---Then there is an old saw that says: It's the mother's baby---the father's maybe.

Not really. Assuming I do make a mistake like that, I'd probably own up to it. If she decided to get an abortion, great. If not, I'll deal with the consequences.

You sound like a Leykis 101 student. :)

Ultimately it's the woman's decision to abort or not, as it is her body, but the father has a right to contribute to that decision making.

Men should have a part in the legislation making process too. The outcome has an effect on society as a whole, not exclusively on women or men.

I almost hope you impregnate some woman you don't give two shits about, who then tags your ass for child support. It'll be amusing to see you change your tune.

most likely change a guys tune about having sex with someone he don't give two shits about.

However, I will add that if a man is to be held responsible for child support et al., he should damn well have a say in the abortion decision.
I would say rather, that a man should have no say in the abortion decision either way, but if he is adamantly opposed to supporting a child, then he should have some ability to sever his connections with that child before it is born. That may in fact influence the decision of the woman to bring the child to term, but that's not the same as giving the man an actual legal say in whether that happens or not.

Ah. So I'm ignorant because I don't share your POV. Got it.

No, frankly, you're just ignorant.

That's tough, quite frankly. That's the sort of responsibility a man embarks upon when he gets a woman knocked up.

As if she had no part in it. Riiiight...

It's a before and after type of responsibility, but the in-between is completely up to the woman. That is, until men become physically able to carry a child to term.

At which point, his body, his choice.

Okay, so if he wants her to abort, and she doesn't, he'll still be liable for child support? Of course he will. If he says he'll raise and care for the child? Oh well, fuck him. It's her body. That's bullshit.

Not really. Assuming I do make a mistake like that, I'd probably own up to it. If she decided to get an abortion, great. If not, I'll deal with the consequences.

Easy to say until you run into it, as my little brother did.

Whoa...finally someone who agrees with me on this (I think). Two people consent to sex. The woman gets pregnant. Now, the guy is willing to care for the child for (at least) 18 years. The woman wants to abort instead of spending nine months pregnant and giving birth. They both consented to the act that got them to this point, right? Why should the man's wishes simply be cast aside if he's willing to raise the child himself, especially if, were the situation reversed (i.e., he doesn't want the child, but she carries it to term anyway), he's responsible for supporting the child? Perfect example of hypocrisy.

i doubt that we agree i was just unsure of flatus' point.

she has the right to not be pregnant. no one should be able to override that right as long as the procedure is legal.

at the same time, no one should be able to repudiate a child before its born. neither parent should be able to give up parental rights and responsibilities before birth. there are just too many things that change. consider how many women change their minds about adoption after giving birth. the same is true for men.

an abortion isnt a child. you might have wanted the abortion but the reality of a baby can easily change your mind. many men have fallen in love with a child they never wanted to begin with. to make an irrevocable decision before you know how you would really feel would be foolish.

besides you owe child support not to the mother but to the child. the state will never let men out of that responsibility. it would be too expensive.

Easy to say until you run into it, as my little brother did.

I'm not your little brother.

You don't know me.

Don't pretend you know what decisions I'd make.

No, frankly, you're just ignorant.

You do have an ignore funtion. Why don't you use it then? It makes more sense that being a jerk.

There's no reason for attitude here.

most likely change a guys tune about having sex with someone he don't give two shits about.

Um...maybe there's a falling out before the pregnancy is discovered? Possible, isn't it?

Oh wait...that happened with my girlfriend. So yeah, it is possible. She broke up with her child's father before she found out she was pregnant. He a good guy, though -- still pays support and sees his daughter every weekend. Not all men are evil penis-driven demons, y'know.

No; no one should be able to vote on the legitimacy of human rights.

Exactly.

The right to abortion is a fundamental right. It does not and should not depend on the outcome of a vote.

The concepts of rights or equal protection under the law are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Some of you have been sidetracked unto a different question than that posed by the OP, i.e. whether a father should have a say in an individual instance of whether a child is aborted.

The point is rather obvious that the right to abortion belongs to the woman. She has the right to control her own body. Period. Hopefully the woman is part of a relationship with the father that makes her decision a mutual one, but that is merely a hope, not a requirement.

The question of child support is unrelated. It is not a woman's right to child support, but the child's (if there is a child) own right to support.

The question of child support is unrelated.

It's not unrelated at all. If he's going to be held responsible for child support, he should have a say in the abortion decision. This "it's her body" shite is just that -- shite. She consented to have sex, just as he did. It's a shared responsibility, so it should be a shared decision.

The right to vote? Of course. Strange question.

Every politician is forced at some point to state a position on abortion. You can't abstain from the abortion debate unless you refuse to vote.

No, frankly, you're just ignorant.

As if she had no part in it. Riiiight...

Okay, so if he wants her to abort, and she doesn't, he'll still be liable for child support? Of course he will. If he says he'll raise and care for the child? Oh well, fuck him. It's her body. That's bullshit.

Easy to say until you run into it, as my little brother did.

You've mistaken this for some contest of responsibility between the man and the woman.

A. The woman has a right to control her own body. Period.

B. If there is a child, it has a right to support from both parents.

C. A and B are unrelated.

As if she had no part in it. Riiiight... Of course she has a part in it...the biggest part. Whether she aborts or carries the baby to term, she undergoes extreme physical changes. Neither decision is particularly easy when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy, but goddamn right that decision, in its entirety, is HERS. Her body, her choice...it's not a set of trite words, you need to seriously consider them. How on earth can you actually support FORCING a woman, by any means, to abort, or carry a child? You would strip her of her most basic autonomy? Unspeakable.


Okay, so if he wants her to abort, and she doesn't, he'll still be liable for child support? Of course he will. Read on, I've given my opinion on that. I'd like to add to it, that if the father later changes his mind, and wants some contact with the child, that the mother should have the right to sue for back support. You want out? Stay out.

If he says he'll raise and care for the child? Oh well, fuck him. It's her body. That's bullshit. No, that's not even close to approaching bullshit. If he wants a child of his own, he needs to find a woman willing to bear him that child. No woman should be forced into carrying a child she does not want. Frankly, the man's view on this is irrelevant in terms of the actual decision. Oh, it might be persuasive, or compelling...but it should never, not ever, be in any way binding.

If you want to say "its her body, her choice" then dont make the guy pay because she forgot to take the pill.


If a guy doesn't want to own up to his part in conceiving the child..then he shouldn't have sex in the first place. There is no birth control out there that is not failsafe (except abstinence).

Perhaps the woman should have absolute right to decide in the
first 9 months
and the man should have absolute or joint right to decide in the
second 9 months

Wouldn't that be fair

If a guy doesn't want to own up to his part in conceiving the child..then he shouldn't have sex in the first place. There is no birth control out there that is not failsafe (except abstinence).

I'm going to sound like a jerk for saying this, but I just had the amusing thought:

Even abstinence isn't 100% Just look at Mary :D

You've mistaken this for some contest of responsibility between the man and the woman.

A. The woman has a right to control her own body. Period.

B. If there is a child, it has a right to support from both parents.

C. A and B are unrelated.

QFT.

Bottom line. You are violating the woman's civil rights if you force her to abort a child she wants or carry that same child to term if she doesn't want it. It's a question of her body.

Edit: A man would do well to at least ask if a woman would have an abortion before having sex with her. Sure she can lie or change her mind, but he is eliminating the definate "no way in hell's."

I would say rather, that a man should have no say in the abortion decision either way, but if he is adamantly opposed to supporting a child, then he should have some ability to sever his connections with that child before it is born. That may in fact influence the decision of the woman to bring the child to term, but that's not the same as giving the man an actual legal say in whether that happens or not.

And let me add to this...I do not think that men should be able to wiggle out of child support by discovering that they are about to be or already are a father, running to the nearest JP and getting a 'paper abortion'. That settlement needs to be negotiated...and I see it happening along a continuum. No support, absolutely no contact. Ever. Full support, full contact (as full as possible if the parents aren't together). And all the possibilities between.

But no wandering around with your unprotected dick in your hands, and a standard form waiver of parental responsibility in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

If the man doesn't have any say on the matter then he shouldn't have to pay child support.

It's not unrelated at all. If he's going to be held responsible for child support, he should have a say in the abortion decision. This "it's her body" shite is just that -- shite. She consented to have sex, just as he did. It's a shared responsibility, so it should be a shared decision.

It's totally unrelated. The responsibility is owed to the child if there is one, not to the woman.

A woman's right to control her own body is not ceded to the "responsiblity" of the child, let alone to some "shared responsibility." Ideally whether or not to bear a child should be a shared decision, but it is not so as a matter of rights or law. If there is a child, then each parent shares a responsibility to the child. If not, there is no such responsiblity.

The concepts of self-ownership and basic liberty are not shite. The are fundamental tenants of a free society. Pull your head out.

If the man doesn't have any say on the matter then he shouldn't have to pay child support.

The man does have a say in the matter. He can always refuse to have sex, or only opt for sex with other men.

The question of child support is unrelated. It is not a woman's right to child support, but the child's (if there is a child) own right to support.

Good point, and one that I forget all too often.

All those years of hearing about what money grubbing whores women are when they get knocked up and left by the father of the child.

As for the question posed by the OP? No. Men should not have the ability to vote to disallow abortion.

If a guy doesn't want to own up to his part in conceiving the child..then he shouldn't have sex in the first place. There is no birth control out there that is not failsafe (except abstinence).

That's an argument against abortion in general. If the man has to take responsibility for having sex than so does the woman.

It's not unrelated at all. If he's going to be held responsible for child support, he should have a say in the abortion decision. This "it's her body" shite is just that -- shite. She consented to have sex, just as he did. It's a shared responsibility, so it should be a shared decision.

Consent to sex does not mean consent to the birth of a child.

However, it is the woman actually bearing that child or not. Only her consent to the matter is at all relevant.

And as Cat has pointed out, the issue of child-support is one between the child and the parents, not between the mother and father.

The concepts of self-ownership and basic liberty are not shite. The are fundamental tenants of a free society. Pull your head out.

:D

Always a pleasure to read your posts, Cat!

Of course she has a part in it...the biggest part.

In the pregnancy, sure, but not necessarily in the raising of a child.

Whether she aborts or carries the baby to term, she undergoes extreme physical changes. Neither decision is particularly easy when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy, but goddamn right that decision, in its entirety, is HERS. Her body, her choice...it's not a set of trite words, you need to seriously consider them. How on earth can you actually support FORCING a woman, by any means, to abort, or carry a child? You would strip her of her most basic autonomy? Unspeakable.

She had a choice. She chose to roll the dice and have sexual intercourse. If she didn't want to get pregnant, well, shit, looks like she lost.

Read on, I've given my opinion on that. I'd like to add to it, that if the father later changes his mind, and wants some contact with the child, that the mother should have the right to sue for back support. You want out? Stay out.

I completely agree with you on this one point.

No, that's not even close to approaching bullshit. If he wants a child of his own, he needs to find a woman willing to bear him that child. No woman should be forced into carrying a child she does not want. Frankly, the man's view on this is irrelevant in terms of the actual decision. Oh, it might be persuasive, or compelling...but it should never, not ever, be in any way binding.

Hey, she entered into it, knowing what the consequences might be. If she wanted to get off, there are always battery-operated friends she could use. But no, if she chooses (note: this is where she has her biggest choice) to have sexual intercourse with a man, she has involved someone else, and if he's going to be responsible for 18 years if she decides to have the child, he should be able to say, "Suck it up for nine months. We both had sex. And I'm willing to deal with the consequences for 18 years. You only have to deal for nine months."

It's totally unrelated. The responsibility is owed to the child if there is one, not to the woman.

A woman's right to control her own body is not ceded to the "responsiblity" of the child, let alone to some "shared responsibility." Ideally whether or not to bear a child should be a shared decision, but it is not so as a matter of rights or law. If there is a child, then each parent shares a responsibility to the child. If not, there is no such responsiblity.

The concepts of self-ownership and basic liberty are not shite. The are fundamental tenants of a free society. Pull your head out.

*Bows* Please teach me your zen debating skills.

As for the question posed by the OP? No. Men should not have the ability to vote to disallow abortion.

And here I thought you were actually intelligent.

Well...not going to be wasting my time any longer.

And here I thought you were actually intelligent.

Well...not going to be wasting my time any longer.

Mature. Next you'll start slinging yo momma jokes :rolleyes:

Of course men should be able to vote. Like has been said before, most women won't get an abortion, but they would still be allowed to vote on it, so why not guys too?

But the question about child support really gets me thinking. It's an either or thing: either the father's rights or the child's. I'm leaning towards the father. If the mother can choose whether or not she wants keep the child, why can't the dad?

You've mistaken this for some contest of responsibility between the man and the woman.

A. The woman has a right to control her own body. Period.

B. If there is a child, it has a right to support from both parents.

C. A and B are unrelated.


Except in a handful of countries neither women nor men are allowed to kill themselves so control over their own bodies is limited from the get go,
even in those rare countries, it is never a matter of them simply wanting the
chance, they have to be rather ill in general and it has to be agreed by more
than one doctor and usually psychiatrists have to be involved as well.
If a woman wishes to stop her own heart she would not be permitted to do so. She can of course do so illegally as long as no one catches her doing it
so in that sense its a little like a back street abortion.

Really this is all about what we consider life and at what stage in life
the state granted right to life begins and when it ends.

Some people who oppose abortion do so because for the state to become
aware that it is deciding when to grant the right to life and when not to,
it may move to times and ages that suit the state rather than what you
might consider to suit the individual. Others of course oppose it for religious
or for moral reasons. Some just oppose it because they are not very bright
just as some approve of it for the self same reason.

I don't oppose abortion , however this is on purely practical terms, fully knowing that if there were not
legal abortion there would still be abortion and more death and pain then there is now.

I do think abortion is a terrible idea unless it is necessary as in medically necessary,
if the mother's life is at risk then no problem at all.

The only problem with point B is it only applies to men as if a woman does
not wish to support a child they can by point a have an abortion possibly
for no reason other than not wanting to support a child.

he should be able to say, "Suck it up for nine months. We both had sex. And I'm willing to deal with the consequences for 18 years. You only have to deal for nine months."

She's not his personal baby dispenser. Even if they had sex.

She has no moral obligation, and certainly there is no good basis for a legal obligation, to be pregnant for his sake. Maybe if his life was in danger. Not if he just wants a child.

[INDENT]A. The woman has a right to control her own body. Period.

Agreed.

B. If there is a child, it has a right to support from both parents.

Who says?

Why do people wave the flag of personal choice as a fundamental right in one breath, while preaching "personal responsibility" for others?

And here I thought you were actually intelligent. Oh no! I disagree with you! I must be stupid!

Answer me this. If a man should not be allowed to allow or deny a specific woman an abortion, then why should he have the power to allow or deny ALL women an abortion?

You see that? It's called a contradiction. And it just doesn't wash.
Well...not going to be wasting my time any longer.Yes, having to challenge your shaky views on a matter is a waste of time. Ta ta.

Of course men should be able to vote. Like has been said before, most women won't get an abortion, but they would still be allowed to vote on it, so why not guys too?

Neither should be permitted to vote.

I'm leaning towards the father. If the mother can choose whether or not she wants keep the child, why can't the dad?

Because an actual person with rights exists after birth that does not exist when the child is merely a fetus.

So the mother's choice is morally legitimate, but the father's is not - because there is a child who is in need, and he cannot just wave his obligation to provide for him or her.

Except in a handful of countries neither women nor men are allowed to kill themselves so control over their own bodies is limited from the get go, Rare countries? What are you on about? Suicide isn't illegal in MOST countries.. What the hell are you going to do...arrest a corpse? Perhaps you are thinking about euthanasia...whereby someone assists a suicide? Quite another can of beans.

Why do people wave the flag of personal choice as a fundamental right in one breath, while preaching "personal responsibility" for others?

Two reasons.

1. Bodily autonomy is far more fundamental a right than absolute sovereignty over one's money.
2. A child has rights a fetus does not.

Neither should be permitted to vote.
Aha! And this is indeed what it boils down to.

We are discussing a fundamental human right, the right to the autonomy of the body. And in some nations, there are certain rights that are not subject to infringement. It would be nice if this was a universal concept.

It's not that women should get to vote to allow, or disallow abortion, while men wait for them outside the polling station...but rather, that man OR woman, that right is not one that should ever be denied.

Neither should be permitted to vote.



Because an actual person with rights exists after birth that does not exist when the child is merely a fetus.

So the mother's choice is morally legitimate, but the father's is not - because there is a child who is in need, and he cannot just wave his obligation to provide for him or her.

So what is your definition of an actual person
when do they become an actual person with rights and what is the
difference between the moment they become that person and the moment before?

Of course men should be able to vote. Like has been said before, most women won't get an abortion, but they would still be allowed to vote on it, so why not guys too?

But the question about child support really gets me thinking. It's an either or thing: either the father's rights or the child's. I'm leaning towards the father. If the mother can choose whether or not she wants keep the child, why can't the dad?

when it comes to abortion, only a woman can make that decision because only she is pregnant. (which is not to suggest that the father should have no input, just that he cant make the final decision)


when it comes to a CHILD both parents are on the hook. neither can walk away from the baby without due legal process. the mother cant give the baby up for adoption without the fathers consent. if she hands the baby over to the father to raise alone, she still must pay child support.

So what is your definition of an actual person

An entity that has certain qualities - rationality, autonomy, a notion of self, sentience, sapience, etc.

when do they become an actual person with rights

Not being an expert on early child development, I can't answer this question.

and what is the difference between the moment before they become that person and the moment before?

Before, they don't possess a trait necessary for personhood; after, they do.

Obviously, it is not really a "momentary" event.

An entity that has certain qualities - rationality, autonomy, a notion of self, sentience, sapience, etc.



Not being an expert on early child development, I can't answer this question.



Before, they don't possess a trait necessary for personhood; after, they do.

Obviously, it is not really a "momentary" event.

Your definition would allow for abortion after birth

is that the position you really wish to take?

Well, once upon a time, only rich people could vote, since they were the only ones assumed to be affected by the economic policies.

Nowadays, everyone above a certain mental threshold (presumeably defined by age and a number of other factors) is permitted a vote.

If you're going to vote on anything, let everyone who is already permitted to vote, vote. Don't start nitpicking who gets to vote, or you'll end up with a lot of istuations where you all of a sudden don't have a vote because "it doesn't concern you."

Also, as has been mentioned, this isn't something that should be voted on in the first place. Kinda should just be a natural right, since it also happens naturally.

Hey, she entered into it, knowing what the consequences might be. If she wanted to get off, there are always battery-operated friends she could use. But no, if she chooses (note: this is where she has her biggest choice) to have sexual intercourse with a man, she has involved someone else, and if he's going to be responsible for 18 years if she decides to have the child, he should be able to say, "Suck it up for nine months. We both had sex. And I'm willing to deal with the consequences for 18 years. You only have to deal for nine months."

He can try this line, and maybe she'll agree.

But he should never be given the final choice.

Because in essence, what this means, is that the choice is really the man's. Abort! Don't abort! You are saying that the man should be the one who gets to make the ultimate decision over what happens to someone else's body.

No.

She might agree to abort. She might not. But it is HER decision that is the deciding factor. Not his. And I would say the same thing about any decision you made in regards to the autonomy of your own body. No one else should be able to make the final decision in that regard.

Your definition would allow for abortion after birth

is that the position you really wish to take?

Actually... yes. In principle.

In practice, the costs of keeping the child/fetus are not equivalent.

Actually... yes.

?

Actually... yes.

You're really advocating the right to infanticide?

Rare countries? What are you on about? Suicide isn't illegal in MOST countries.. What the hell are you going to do...arrest a corpse? Perhaps you are thinking about euthanasia...whereby someone assists a suicide? Quite another can of beans.

I think you will find in any country where suicide is not illegal that that
is a fairly recent development.

There was a time when it was even punishable by death

I think you will find in any country where suicide is not illegal that that
is a fairly recent development.

There was a time when it was even punishable by death

That's absurd. You can't kill a dead body.

You're really advocating the right to infanticide?

Like I said once you start thinking you choose when to set the age
and development that the right to life is granted at, you can move it anywhere.

That's absurd. You can't kill a dead body.

not everyone who attempted suicide succeeded but they had still broken the law. cool or what.

Two reasons.

1. Bodily autonomy is far more fundamental a right than absolute sovereignty over one's money.

They are both questions of free will. Both concern future eventualities.

No-one has yet demonstrated why a man should be required to pay child support if it was clear he did not want a child, or want any relationship with the child.

I think you will find in any country where suicide is not illegal that that
is a fairly recent development.

There was a time when it was even punishable by death

Um.

Okay then.

:rolleyes:

I can speak for Canada. Suicide was never a crime.

Attempted suicide was another issue.

?

You're really advocating the right to infanticide?

What would be the point of infanticide?

I'm advocating a right for persons to refuse to pay large costs (like a violation of fundamental bodily autonomy) for the maintenance of the lives of non-persons.

We make the same choice by not offering chimpanzees comprehensive health care services at immense cost to ourselves.

What would be the point of infanticide?

I'm advocating a right for persons to refuse to pay large costs (like a violation of fundamental bodily autonomy) for the maintenance of the lives of non-persons.

We make the same choice by not offering chimpanzees comprehensive health care services at immense cost to ourselves.

Oh. Oh boy. I totally thought you were suggesting that abortion of children already born should be legal. Though it wouldn't be called abortion.

My bad.

They are both questions of free will. Both concern future eventualities.

No-one has yet demonstrated why a man should be required to pay child support if it was clear he did not want a child, or want any relationship with the child.

because he is the child's father and children have the right to support from both parents.

We just finished a unit on abortion in health class, and one kid brought up a good point; As a man will never give birth, get pregnant, have to deal with all the issues of pregnancy (other than a temperamental wife), ect., should males be able to vote on or decide on the legality of abortion?

I leave the floor open to debate.

Yeah. After all, the woman may be carrying it, but it's his baby too.

They are both questions of free will. Both concern future eventualities.

Agreed. So? They are still different.

Being taxed is not equivalent to being raped.

No-one has yet demonstrated why a man should be required to pay child support if it was clear he did not want a child, or want any relationship with the child.

Because there is a child who needs people to provide for him or her.

It follows that the people responsible for its existence - the father and the mother - should pay.

Yeah. After all, the woman may be carrying it, but it's his baby too.

Unfortunately as night follows day if Mummy can choose to not be Mummy
then Daddy can choose to not be Daddy

Of course historically a lot more Daddies have chosen not to be daddy
whether the law allowed it or not.

They are both questions of free will. Both concern future eventualities.

No-one has yet demonstrated why a man should be required to pay child support if it was clear he did not want a child, or want any relationship with the child.

Yahtzee! Finally, someone gets that it's not all about the "but it's her body!" argument.

And with that, I'm off to check the UN forum, then blow stuff up on Star Wars Battlefront II.

Enjoy viewing the world through gender-coloured classes over the weekend, folks. Me? I'll just be drinking to forget I ever waded into this cespool of ignorance.

Oh. Oh boy. I totally thought you were suggesting that abortion of children already born should be legal.

"Legal", no. Not in this society, anyway, where they can be provided for without egregious costs.

The situation would be different in a society with immense scarcity of resources, or that otherwise had immense difficulty providing for its young.

Agreed. So? They are still different.

Being taxed is not equivalent to being raped.



Because there is a child who needs people to provide for him or her.

It follows that the people responsible for its existence - the father and the mother - should pay.

When did rape come into this

Yes some people who are raped become pregnant and many of those choose to abort but they are nowhere near the majority.

There is no rape in this argument this is about people who had consensual
sex that either was intended to bring about conception or unintentionally
brought about conception.

because he is the child's father and children have the right to support from both parents.

As I asked before, who says they have this right?

Unfortunately as night follows day if Mummy can choose to not be Mummy
then Daddy can choose to not be Daddy

Of course historically a lot more Daddies have chosen not to be daddy
whether the law allowed it or not.

and really, all talk of fairness aside for a moment, do we really want to encourage even more men to walk away from their children?

As I asked before, who says they have this right?

The state does

and morally the child has that right as they had no part in the decision of
whether to be born or not and everyone who brought that about is responsible.

When did rape come into this

Nowhere. It was an example of the difference between violations of bodily autonomy and violations of absolute sovereignty over one's money.

As I asked before, who says they have this right?

the law?

custom?

human decency?

take your pick

Oh. Oh boy. I totally thought you were suggesting that abortion of children already born should be legal. Though it wouldn't be called abortion.

My bad.

Ditto. That threw me for a loop as well.

Nowhere. It was an example of the difference between violations of bodily autonomy and violations of absolute sovereignty over one's money.

Well perhaps you could try to compare more like with like

Cos not allowing someone to remove something that is in them naturally
will exit them naturally and is there due to their own actions in the first place
is rather different from forcibly entering them.

Agreed. So? They are still different.
Being taxed is not equivalent to being raped.

With respect, what does rape have to do with the tea in China?

Because there is a child who needs people to provide for him or her.
It follows that the people responsible for its existence - the father and the mother - should pay.

And yet there are other mechanisms for support of the child...
I think we can agree that it is in everyone's interests that a society's children ought to be supported. However, it has (still) not been shown why a woman should have the right to self-determination while a man should not.

Yahtzee! Finally, someone gets that it's not all about the "but it's her body!" argument.

And with that, I'm off to check the UN forum, then blow stuff up on Star Wars Battlefront II.

Enjoy viewing the world through gender-coloured classes over the weekend, folks. Me? I'll just be drinking to forget I ever waded into this cespool of ignorance.

Too bad the argument you label as 'ignorance' doesn't appear to be one you can refute logically in any way.

Maybe you're just too smart to bother?

Yeah...no.

Love how the intelligence of others is measured in direct proportion to how much you agree with them.

when it comes to a CHILD both parents are on the hook.

If it isn't a child until it's born, should we allow the male to 'opt out', thus giving the mother time to make a decision? Forcing a father to pay child support for 18 years for a child he doesn't want sounds to me like a gross violation of his rights, given that the mother can have an abortion to avoid the same. But the solution, ie: 'allowing the father to dump all responsibility on the mother' is just morally wrong. I can't see a good solution to this one.

Ditto. That threw me for a loop as well.

I see no reason to consider the child a day after birth as morally different from the fetus a day before. Dunlaoire pointed out, accurately, that it would be arbitrary and inconsistent to do so.

The only difference - and I added this in an edit that clearly wasn't quick enough - is in terms of costs. It is no longer necessary to violate someone's bodily autonomy to maintain the child's life.

the law?

Can be changed.

custom?

Customs also. You can thank this fact for the existence of pro-choice legislation.

human decency?

:rolleyes:

I see no reason to consider the child a day after birth as morally different from the fetus a day before. Dunlaoire pointed out, accurately, that it would be arbitrary and inconsistent to do so.

The only difference - and I added this in an edit that clearly wasn't quick enough - is in terms of costs. It is no longer necessary to violate someone's bodily autonomy to maintain the child's life.

I'm still not clear on how carrying a foetus that they are responsible for creating
is somehow violating bodily autonomy. There are a great many things in your
body that you have no control over. Being denied a right to interfere with
one of them in a situation where it will naturally come to an end anyway
is hardly violation.

If a guy doesn't want to own up to his part in conceiving the child..then he shouldn't have sex in the first place. There is no birth control out there that is not failsafe (except abstinence).

If the woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, she shouldn't be having sex either. It works both ways.

Cos not allowing someone to remove something that is in them naturally will exit them naturally and is there due to their own actions in the first place is rather different from forcibly entering them.

I don't see what how "natural" pregnancy is has to do with anything, and their taking of risks at no point justifies violating someone's bodily autonomy (in either case.)

I don't see what how "natural" pregnancy is has to do with anything, and their taking of risks at no point justifies violating someone's bodily autonomy (in either case.)

Again what I am asking here is how it violates anyone's bodily autonomy.
You also cannot have one lung removed unless its diseased or otherwise going
to affect your ability to stay alive.

Since when is allowing invasive and permanent procedures for no good reason
a stand FOR people's control over their own bodies.

I see no reason to consider the child a day after birth as morally different from the fetus a day before. Dunlaoire pointed out, accurately, that it would be arbitrary and inconsistent to do so.

The only difference - and I added this in an edit that clearly wasn't quick enough - is in terms of costs. It is no longer necessary to violate someone's bodily autonomy to maintain the child's life.

The trouble with your definition is that it is unacceptable to any modern culture,
as by the definition you gave, it would not just be infants, it could be argued
for just about anybody of any age. Including adult women.
So are you saying they have a right to abort at any time but the flip side
is they can be killed at any time by their own parents? If they fail to meet
the criteria laid down for full personhood.

I'm still not clear on how carrying a foetus that they are responsible for creating is somehow violating bodily autonomy.

You don't see how compelling a person to carry a fetus to term is a violation of bodily autonomy?

Are you serious?

Being denied a right to interfere with one of them in a situation where it will naturally come to an end anyway is hardly violation.

Yes, it is. The fact that it will "naturally come to an end" is irrelevant; it is still forcing a person to allow her body to be grossly used against her will.

I think we can agree that it is in everyone's interests that a society's children ought to be supported. However, it has (still) not been shown why a woman should have the right to self-determination while a man should not.

A woman should have the right to self-determination over her body. So should a man.

A man should not have the right to refuse to pay child support for his child. Nor should a woman.

And yet there are other mechanisms for support of the child...
I think we can agree that it is in everyone's interests that a society's children ought to be supported. However, it has (still) not been shown why a woman should have the right to self-determination while a man should not.

you are looking at this too narrowly. its not a matter of child support, its a matter of legal rights.

do you want to have the right to be the legal father of your children? of course you do.

you should be without question the legal father of every child you help create. no one would want to be in some legal limbo where he has to prove he is worthy to be father to his own children. you dont want your child's mother to be able to keep you from your child out of spite. you dont want the state to be able to give your children away to some "better" father (at least not without proving that you are so horrible a father that your rights need to be terminated) you want your children to be automatically YOURS.

you also, for example, would like to be able to claim any extra children that you may have fathered who are being passed off as some other man's children. they are also your children and you have a right to them.

you cant have it both ways. you cant be father to some of your children and not others (without due legal process) without running the very real risk of ending up as father to none of them. you dont want the state to be able to decide that you really arent your child's father after all. thats what you would be opening the door to.

Unfortunately as night follows day if Mummy can choose to not be Mummy
then Daddy can choose to not be Daddy

Of course historically a lot more Daddies have chosen not to be daddy
whether the law allowed it or not.

If one person isn't ready, th child should be aborted. Both have to be ready.

The trouble with your definition is that it is unacceptable to any modern culture,

Our cultural morality is extremely inconsistent.

It falls apart egregiously if, among other things, you demand a consistent standard for both human and non-human rights.

as by the definition you gave, it would not just be infants, it could be argued for just about anybody of any age. Including adult women.

The question as to whether the rights of personhood are kept if the traits are lost is an interesting one, but not really relevant here.

So are you saying they have a right to abort at any time but the flip side is they can be killed at any time by their own parents?

No, that doesn't follow.

If they fail to meet the criteria laid down for full personhood.

That's a pretty significant condition. Not exactly a matter of "I can kill anyone on a whim."

Indeed, unless you are a radical animal-rights advocate, you likely subscribe to it in other contexts, too.

You also cannot have one lung removed unless its diseased or otherwise going to affect your ability to stay alive.

First, yes, it should be permissible, if you are in your right mind, to have a perfectly healthy lung removed.

Second, possessing a lung and being pregnant are not really equivalent.

for no good reason

:confused:

I see no reason to consider the child a day after birth as morally different from the fetus a day before. Dunlaoire pointed out, accurately, that it would be arbitrary and inconsistent to do so.

The only difference - and I added this in an edit that clearly wasn't quick enough - is in terms of costs. It is no longer necessary to violate someone's bodily autonomy to maintain the child's life.

there is no sense in muddying the water with the rarest of all abortions, the 9th month abortion that is only done out of dire necessity, not maternal whim

the vast majority of all abortions occur before the 12th week. the rest are done for medical reasons.

a woman who wants an abortion has no incentive to wait until its almost full term.

there is no sense in muddying the water with the rarest of all abortions, the 9th month abortion that is only done out of dire necessity, not maternal whim

Regardless, it remains true that birth in and of itself makes little difference as far as the personhood of the fetus goes.

You don't see how compelling a person to carry a fetus to term is a violation of bodily autonomy?

Are you serious?



The theory would be that she made the decision of her own free will to
engage in an activity that could reasonably be understood to carry the
risk of conception.

Why for a situation that is of her own creation by her own decision is
not allowing an invasive and destructive procedure a violation of her bodily
autonomy.

Regardless, it remains true that birth in and of itself makes little difference as far as the personhood of the fetus goes.

really?

where i come from a baby isnt counted as a person until the day it is born.

The theory would be that she made the decision of her own free will to engage in an activity that could reasonably be understood to carry the risk of conception.

So? She still does not desire to carry the fetus to term. It follows that to force her to do so is to force her to let her body be used AGAINST HER WILL.

That is an obvious violation of bodily autonomy.

where i come from a baby isnt counted as a person until the day it is born.

By what standard?

It falls apart egregiously if, among other things, you demand a consistent standard for both human and non-human rights.


Your argument here is that foetuses and infants and presumably
the mentally and possibly physically handicapped don't meet your
standard of personhood.

For me a baby is not an adult but is fully human, as is a foetus.


The question as to whether the rights of personhood are kept if the traits are lost is an interesting one, but not really relevant here.


Actually very relevant


No, that doesn't follow.

By your definition of personhood it does


That's a pretty significant condition. Not exactly a matter of "I can kill anyone on a whim.


Not anyone at all on a whim but it relies on what are subjective judgements
which makes it unsuitable and unacceptable to people.


Indeed, unless you are a radical animal-rights advocate, you likely subscribe to it in other contexts, too.


animals =/= humans
by being a non person in your definition apparently you are then ranked
as an animal which brings undesirable linkage to nazis and eugenics


First, yes, it should be permissible, if you are in your right mind, to have a perfectly healthy lung removed.


Obviously I would view this as insane but your position is consistent
so we shall not argue it.


Second, possessing a lung and being pregnant are not really equivalent.


quite true, unless you mistreat it your lung will be with you your entire life.
a pregnancy will not last longer than 10 months.
Admittedly a healthy pregnancy will inconvenience you more than
a healthy lung by quite a considerable margin.
But I would hold the woman's right to choose was exercised prior to conception

By what standard?

Aside from the standard of laws practiced by the United States and most countries that allow abortion?

By what standard?

legal

social

medical

take your pick

you are looking at this too narrowly. its not a matter of child support, its a matter of legal rights.

do you want to have the right to be the legal father of your children? of course you do.

--snippage--

Except that the State, through the Family Court, effectively makes these sorts of distinctions all the time (are you sure you want to go down that road?).

What you seem to be asking men to do is embrace their state-imposed obligations, regardless of what little say they had in the matter.

Beyond biological realities, "Mother" and "Father" are social constructs. We collectively decide what meaning is attached to those labels - a child can be brought up by anyone who loves them. And that's the way it should be.

you cant have it both ways.

That is precisely the position I take.

So? She still does not desire to carry the fetus to term. It follows that to force her to do so is to force her to let her body be used AGAINST HER WILL.

That is an obvious violation of bodily autonomy.

She cannot safely end the pregnancy without intervention so it is not about he bodily autonomy. Her wishes here override the health and of course life of the foetus and require other peoples assistance not to mention the sanction of
state and society.

I do tend to feel that she made a choice and if she does not like the consequences of that choice well that's unfortunate but there is no sensible
bodily autonomy or woman's right to choose argument.
"I preserve my bodily autonomy by having it surgically invaded" is nonsense
and as said before the moment of choice came before conception and is null afterwards

Having said that I will reiterate that I do not oppose legal abortion
I just don't approve of it except where it is necessary (which is a very very tiny number of instances, even including rape)

I think the whole question should be revised to 'Should anyone have the right to vote on abortion issues?' Why should anyone but the person who is pregnant have a say in the issue at all - man or woman? My personal view is that we shouldn't be in the business of telling people what they can or can't vote on - espescially about dividing the issue into which gender, race or religion can vote on any particular issue.

Rather, I would allow people to openly discuss and vote whatever they feel, and allow the courts to overturn unconstitutional legislation. Somewhere along the way, our courts have decided that the right to personal autonomy trumps the procreative rights of the male. And that's fair. If a man really wants to have a baby, there are billions of possible alternatives out there. However, you can't suddenly force a woman to keep a child (or abort one) based on the need of the man to keep the baby.

Child support is a trickier issue, although my personal opinion is that if you can't keep it in your pants, get ready to have a light wallet. Seriously. It's about the welfare of the child folks. Now, the tricky part to me, is that if the man doesn't want to have offspring, the woman has the choice to abort the baby fully aware of the consequences of keeping it. I feel however, that society is better off by slapping such men around and emptying their pockets so that these children can live a better life.

Actually very relevant

How?

Not anyone at all on a whim but it relies on what are subjective judgements which makes it unsuitable and unacceptable to people.

ANY distinction between "entities worthy of moral consideration" and "entities unworthy of moral consideration" is subjective.

animals =/= humans

With the same credibility, I could insist that fetuses =/= children and avoid this entire problem.

Apparently unlike you, however, I prefer to not make arbitrary distinctions.

by being a non person in your definition apparently you are then ranked as an animal which brings undesirable linkage to nazis and eugenics

I've never been very fond of guilt by association.

But I would hold the woman's right to choose was exercised prior to conception

It's not so much a right to "choose" as it is a right to sovereignty and autonomy.

She does not merely have the right to "choose", she has the right to CONTROL.

What you seem to be asking men to do is embrace their state-imposed obligations, regardless of what little say they had in the matter.


Sometimes state enforced obligations but the state did not create them
our human nature tells us that it is a parent's obligation to provide
for their offspring whether they wanted the offspring or not


Beyond biological realities, "Mother" and "Father" are social constructs. We collectively decide what meaning is attached to those labels - a child can be brought up by anyone who loves them. And that's the way it should be.



Yes but most theories explain why the vast majority of children will be better
protected and nurtured by their real parents than they would be by strangers.
Naturally there are exceptions and step foster or adopted parents can be
every bit as good as good biological parents and in the case of the exceptions obviously better
But while there are good people taking these roles and loving children as their own, a child is more likely to be loved by their own parents than any random
other people.

Except that the State, through the Family Court, effectively makes these sorts of distinctions all the time (are you sure you want to go down that road?).

What you seem to be asking men to do is embrace their state-imposed obligations, regardless of what little say they had in the matter.

Beyond biological realities, "Mother" and "Father" are social constructs. We collectively decide what meaning is attached to those labels - a child can be brought up by anyone who loves them. And that's the way it should be.



That is precisely the position I take.

the state through family court can decide to terminate a fathers rights. fatherhood is determined by genetic relationship.

i am telling you that it is in men's best interest to have the standard of fatherhood be "it was my sperm". you dont want your parental rights determined by how much you wanted a child 8 months before it was born.

and you would be happy having your children taken from you and given to some other parents who will love them? i think not.

Aside from the standard of laws practiced by the United States and most countries that allow abortion?

As I said before, there are other considerations than the personhood of the child/fetus as far as law-making goes.

legal

social

medical

take your pick

I choose "ethical."

She cannot safely end the pregnancy without intervention so it is not about he bodily autonomy.

Um... how does that follow?

Her wishes here override the health and of course life of the foetus

They do indeed. The fetus is not a person.

and require other peoples assistance

No one is forced to give anyone else an abortion.

not to mention the sanction of state and society.

Not to stop her, yes. So?

"I preserve my bodily autonomy by having it surgically invaded" is nonsense

Do you know what "autonomy" means?

She CHOOSES to have it "invaded." That is entirely different from a pregnancy she wishes to abort; in that case she carries a fetus AGAINST HER WILL.

With the same credibility, I could insist that fetuses =/= children and avoid this entire problem.


Now from your argument I am 99% sure that you know this is untrue.


Apparently unlike you, however, I prefer to not make arbitrary distinctions.


Your definition of person/non-person is exactly that , arbitrary.


I've never been very fond of guilt by association.

perhaps not but your arguments here relating to nonpersons and the definitions you used
would fit the nazi and eugenic attitude to mentally handicapped people
so there is no getting away from it.




It's not so much a right to "choose" as it is a right to sovereignty and autonomy.

Quite often the principle argument made in favour of abortion is that the
foetus cannot naturally and unaided exist outside the womb
A woman equally cannot abort safely naturally and unaided


She does not merely have the right to "choose", she has the right to CONTROL.

Now I am aware that many women do indeed apply this principle to all areas
not just abortion, but what she cannot do by herself safely and unaided
is not her controlling anything

Now from your argument I am 99% sure that you know this is untrue.

That what is untrue?

Your definition of person/non-person is exactly that , arbitrary.

How so?

perhaps not but your arguments here relating to nonpersons and the definitions you used
would fit the nazi and eugenic attitude to mentally handicapped people
so there is no getting away from it.

Let's say this is true (even though it isn't, really.)

Why should I care? Hitler also breathed; I'm not going to stop breathing because he did.

Quite often the principle argument made in favour of abortion is that the foetus cannot naturally and unaided exist outside the womb

Yes... because this means that the fetus is dependent on the mother's body.

If she wishes to withdraw that support, that is her legitimate choice.

A woman equally cannot abort safely naturally and unaided

Indeed, and if no one were willing to provide her with an abortion, it might be legitimate to argue that she could not demand one.

But then, there are people willing - so that is irrelevant.

Now I am aware that many women do indeed apply this principle to all areas not just abortion, but what she cannot do by herself safely and unaided
is not her controlling anything

The fact that she cannot have an abortion unaided is irrelevant to the fact that her CHOOSING to have an abortion is an expression of bodily sovereignty.

I choose "ethical."


what ethics would those be?

sorry you dont like my list but its pretty much the list that counts.

The answer is - sometimes. If a married woman, who is not separated from her husband, wants an abortion, she needs to, at least, inform and consult her husband.

If the couple isn't married, and he will take most of the responsibility for the baby, then he should be consulted.

Otherwise, no.

No man gets to decide what happens with my vagina.

No man gets to decide what happens with my vagina.

You're a girl? Wow. I always thought you were a guy...

Unless that was a joke...

I'm tired. I need more alcohol.

That what is untrue?


That foetuses are not children, even your definition of person/non person
did not attempt to imply that there was any great distinction to be made
between an 8mth old foetus and a 2 month old infant
and an infant is a child.


How so?


You have determined the factors that make a human a person
You have set standards for that definition but you recognise it is not
an agreed definition. You set arbitrary designations on how to determine
the person non person but in relation to abortion we have at all times been
talking about humans not animals, except in so far as humans are animals but
that is a different debate.
Other than the radical animal rights people the rest of us would generally
have a problem if you were to try to suggest that humans of less intelligence, knowledge, strength or health should be treated as other than human.


Let's say this is true (even though it isn't, really.)

Why should I care? Hitler also breathed; I'm not going to stop breathing because he did.


It really is true, it is not suggesting that you are a nazi or a sympathiser
the argument about humans not being people and being on the same
lower level as animals remains however something that the nazis espoused
and that most people in the world would reject.


Yes... because this means that the fetus is dependent on the mother's body.

If she wishes to withdraw that support, that is her legitimate choice.

Then why have any assistance for her to do it.
If you imply it is some kind of natural right then she will have a natural system
built in to allow her to make and carry out that choice.
Or at least some kind of natural system to ease the process as there is a bodily reaction when the woman wishes to have sex.

I can see no legitimate reason for abortion being "cos I just don't want the hassle." or "I changed my mind"

Even in human contracts it usually takes some time to get out of something
you freely entered into. So have a 9 month waiting period and the problem
resolves itself.


Indeed, and if no one were willing to provide her with an abortion, it might be legitimate to argue that she could not demand one.

But then, there are people willing - so that is irrelevant.


And now we get to a stage where women are having abortions when there
are people willing to expend the time money and technology to take care of
the child. Every few years we push the age that a child/ foetus can be
maintained and kept alive to grow healthily further and further back.

If that is then on offer does the woman still retain the right to end the life
that she took part in creating but now does not want?



The fact that she cannot have an abortion unaided is irrelevant to the fact that her CHOOSING to have an abortion is an expression of bodily sovereignty.

Body sovereignty is as far as I know in all other cases about other people
not being able to do invasive things against your will.
This is why it confuses me so much that in this one case it is all about
other people not refusing to do invasive things for her but which will
invade another body and destroy it.

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?

There should be no "abortion policy." Abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor. It has no place in a political platform.

<snip>.

dun? are you typing your posts in another program and pasting them into here? your formatting is very distracting. cant you do something about that?

dun? are you typing your posts in another program and pasting them into here? your formatting is very distracting. cant you do something about that?

I read it as poetry. Blase poetry, but poetry.

No.

There should be no "abortion policy." Abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor. It has no place in a political platform.

i think you are wrong

while the decision whether to have a child or not is a basic human right it may also be regulated just like any other right.

we dont have absolute free speech for example. there are laws stipulating what we are not free to say.

in the same way abortion needs a certain amount of regulation, if only on the medical side. personally i am quite comfortable with laws that disallow a woman from aborting a perfectly healthy 9th month fetus that she suddenly decided she didnt want to have.

i am telling you that it is in men's best interest to have the standard of fatherhood be "it was my sperm". you dont want your parental rights determined by how much you wanted a child 8 months before it was born.

and you would be happy having your children taken from you and given to some other parents who will love them? i think not.

Well, it'll hopefully be a moot point for me as I don't want children. I'm happy being an Uncle. :p

But if circumstances arise where a partner of mine became pregnant, I would like to be able enjoy the same choice as the mother in terms of whether to be involved in the child's life.

Child support.


If abortion is outlawed, or a woman refuses to have one, a man is going to have to pay this.

If we take away men's right to vote on abortion laws, we must take away a woman's right to vote on child support.


Neither of these should ever happen. An abortion is just as much an issue of men as an issue of woman.

I read it as poetry. Blase poetry, but poetry.

lol

me too!

but DAYAM he sucks as a poet.

I read it as poetry. Blase poetry, but poetry.

Why thank you for your kind but casually cutting remark. <g>


dun? are you typing your posts in another program and pasting them into here? your formatting is very distracting. cant you do something about that?


I write my bits in the little box that I get given and tend to hit return when I
am at the end of it. Every now and then someone comments on formatting
but I can see no difficulty in reading it and unfortunately it is something
that you will just have to deal with or skip over. Because I can't see me changing.

i think you are wrong

while the decision whether to have a child or not is a basic human right it may also be regulated just like any other right.

we dont have absolute free speech for example. there are laws stipulating what we are not free to say.

in the same way abortion needs a certain amount of regulation, if only on the medical side. personally i am quite comfortable with laws that disallow a woman from aborting a perfectly healthy 9th month fetus that she suddenly decided she didnt want to have.

I agree. Society is more than treating everything a human CAN do as a right. It's about creating a system where everyone can exercise what they CAN do without interfering too much with someone else's ability to do something. Determining what those boundaries are is a collective responsibility.

I write my bits in the little box that I get given and tend to hit return when I
am at the end of it. Every now and then someone comments on formatting
but I can see no difficulty in reading it and unfortunately it is something
that you will just have to deal with or skip over. Because I can't see me changing.

ohmygod does this mean that you are so OLD that you learned to write on a TYPEWRITER?

ohmygod does this mean that you are so OLD that you learned to write on a TYPEWRITER?

OMG does that mean that you are so young that you learned to write on a computer.

Cos in FACT I am so old I learnt to write with a pencil and paper, look em up on dictionary.com

That foetuses are not children, even your definition of person/non person did not attempt to imply that there was any great distinction to be made between an 8mth old foetus and a 2 month old infant and an infant is a child.

I know. That was the point.

You have determined the factors that make a human a person
You have set standards for that definition but you recognise it is not
an agreed definition.

So?

There is no position that is "agreed" upon.

You set arbitrary designations on how to determine
the person non person

Now you're just repeating yourself.

What's "arbitrary" about them?

but in relation to abortion we have at all times been talking about humans not animals,

Yes, and we have been talking about fetuses, not infants or the handicapped. But you decided to bring them in anyway. Why? Because you wanted to see whether or not I applied my standards consistently.

I think that's fair. And I think it's also fair for me to do the same to you. Since you seem to object to the person/non-person distinction entirely, are you content with giving animals full rights?

You implied "no" - but then you have been so ardently protesting my moral distinctions between humans, so why should you be so much more eager to advocate moral distinctions between species? And why shouldn't you apply the same standard you apply to fetuses to other living entities?

Other than the radical animal rights people the rest of us would generally have a problem if you were to try to suggest that humans of less intelligence, knowledge, strength or health should be treated as other than human.

Yeah, I would have a problem with that, too - but it isn't what I suggested.

It really is true, it is not suggesting that you are a nazi or a sympathiser
the argument about humans not being people and being on the same
lower level as animals remains however something that the nazis espoused
and that most people in the world would reject.

But you betray your own hypocrisy.

If you really had a problem with putting things on that "lower level", you would extend the same privilege to the "animals" you consign to there. But you don't - and if you have non-arbitrary reasons for that, they are probably similar to the ones I have referenced with regard to fetuses.

Then why have any assistance for her to do it.

Because it's necessary for her to exercise her sovereignty.

I fail to see what the need for assistance has to do with anything.

I can see no legitimate reason for abortion being "cos I just don't want the hassle." or "I changed my mind"

"Because I don't want my body to be used against my will" is a sufficiently legitimate reason, because a woman is sovereign over her body.

Even in human contracts it usually takes some time to get out of something you freely entered into.

At no point did the woman contract herself into carrying the fetus to term.

And now we get to a stage where women are having abortions when there are people willing to expend the time money and technology to take care of the child.

AFTER birth. The woman has no obligation to carry it that long.

Body sovereignty is as far as I know in all other cases about other people not being able to do invasive things against your will.
This is why it confuses me so much that in this one case it is all about
other people not refusing to do invasive things for her but which will
invade another body and destroy it.

1. The criterion is not really "invasiveness" but rather sovereignty.
2. It is not much of a stretch to consider pregnancy to be invasive.

i think you are wrong

while the decision whether to have a child or not is a basic human right it may also be regulated just like any other right.

we dont have absolute free speech for example. there are laws stipulating what we are not free to say.

in the same way abortion needs a certain amount of regulation, if only on the medical side. personally i am quite comfortable with laws that disallow a woman from aborting a perfectly healthy 9th month fetus that she suddenly decided she didnt want to have.

How many women seek abortions in the 9th month? I think you've got a straw person there.

OMG does that mean that you are so young that you learned to write on a computer.

Cos in FACT I am so old I learnt to write with a pencil and paper, look em up on dictionary.com

i didnt want to say "type on a typewriter" because that is kinda implied. and "keyboard on a typewriter" makes me shudder.

no im not so young that i learned to type on a computer.

How many women seek abortions in the 9th month? I think you've got a straw person there.

so rare that its not worth talking about.

its still against the law.

Yes. That child is just as much the father's as it is the mother's.

so rare that its not worth talking about.

its still against the law.

And it's still a bad law. Give me reason over logic, every time. Logical extremes can be imagined. Reasonable extremes cannot.

And it's still a bad law. Give me reason over logic, every time. Logical extremes can be imagined. Reasonable extremes cannot.

In what way is it a bad law? If someone did decide to abort a 9 month old fetus, should that be perfectly legal?

More than anything, I believe it to be an arbitrary decision to decide when society accepts that a baby is more than just a biological extension of the mother. It's more of a case of society creating moral boundaries.

And it's still a bad law. Give me reason over logic, every time. Logical extremes can be imagined. Reasonable extremes cannot.

you think that the right to abortion is so absolute that it should be freely available anytime before birth?

In what way is it a bad law? If someone did decide to abort a 9 month old fetus, should that be perfectly legal?

More than anything, I believe it to be an arbitrary decision to decide when society accepts that a baby is more than just a biological extension of the mother. It's more of a case of society creating moral boundaries.

If the abortion of a 9-month fetus is a medical neccesity, hell yes, it should be legal. I repeat, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

a man should have no control over whether or not a particular woman gets an abortion but he certainly should have input as to abortion policy

most women will never have an abortion but still have a say in what abortion policy should be. why shouldnt men?

I'm returning to your original post. See the bolded portion. Any abortion is always a particular abortion. There are no "abortions in general."

If the abortion of a 9-month fetus is a medical neccesity, hell yes, it should be legal. I repeat, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

Euthanasia is an issue between a person and their doctor. Euthanasia shouldn't be on the poltical platform?

Everything has a place on the political platform. Politics is just the extension of society's debates. Let the courts decide what is legal after the fact. (And what the courts decide is usually based off of politically created legislation and constitution.)

No. It's one of those places that life's unfair for sure. But it's the woman's body, so it's her choice.

The unborn child may be INSIDE the woman's body, but it is not PART OF it.

Abortion = murder. A holocaust worse than the one in 41-45.

If the abortion of a 9-month fetus is a medical neccesity, hell yes, it should be legal. I repeat, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

The right to kill does not exist.

The unborn child may be INSIDE the woman's body, but it is not PART OF it.

Abortion = murder. A holocaust worse than the one in 41-45.

Well then apparently every woman's guilty of it, as 66% of all fertilized eggs fail to attach to the wall of the uterus, and thus die.

Have fun wrapping that around your head.

Euthanasia is an issue between a person and their doctor. Euthanasia shouldn't be on the poltical platform?

Everything has a place on the political platform. Politics is just the extension of society's debates. Let the courts decide what is legal after the fact. (And what the courts decide is usually based off of politically created legislation and constitution.)

/agree on euthanasia. Politics is people minding other people's business. Politics suck. People should learn to butt out ;)

I'm returning to your original post. See the bolded portion. Any abortion is always a particular abortion. There are no "abortions in general."

We don't live in a society where we vote on each individual scenario. We vote on general circumstances. We vote on what we decide should be legal (well, in pure civil law systems.) So of course, there are abortions in general. That's like saying we can't vote on what constitutes the legality of theft, because each theft is particular to a scenario, therefore there is no such thing as theft in general.

I'm returning to your original post. See the bolded portion. Any abortion is always a particular abortion. There are no "abortions in general."

to repeat my question. do you believe that the right to abortion is so absolute that it should be freely available at any time before birth?

i think that it is not. there comes a time when "get this thing out of me" means BIRTH, not abortion and that she does not have the right to kill the fetus who could be perfectly well delivered by c-section as a healthy live baby.

The right to kill does not exist.

Sure it does! As does the right to starve.

We don't live in a society where we vote on each individual scenario. We vote on general circumstances. We vote on what we decide should be legal (well, in pure civil law systems.) So of course, there are abortions in general. That's like saying we can't vote on what constitutes the legality of theft, because each theft is particular to a scenario, therefore there is no such thing as theft in general.

And I think that system is crap. Sorry.

And I think that system is crap. Sorry.

You would prefer a system where the masses decide the verdict of each case? Rather than laws that apply generally?

The system ain't great... but I don't see a more feasable sytem.

Sure it does! As does the right to starve.

You are advocating the right to kill exists? So if I advocated killing the most vociferous supporters of the murderous practice that is abortion, that would be OK by you? :eek:

to repeat my question. do you believe that the right to abortion is so absolute that it should be freely available at any time before birth?

i think that it is not. there comes a time when "get this thing out of me" means BIRTH, not abortion and that she does not have the right to kill the fetus who could be perfectly well delivered by c-section as a healthy live baby.

Careful. I'm cut-and-pasting my answer to Mikesburg, so it may come out as "poetry" ;)
If the abortion of a 9-month fetus is a medical neccesity, hell yes, it should be legal. I repeat, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

Abortion = murder. A holocaust worse than the one in 41-45.

Greetings, Godwin. And how are you today? I know NSG calls you up a lot, but it just can't be helped.

Well then apparently every woman's guilty of it, as 66% of all fertilized eggs fail to attach to the wall of the uterus, and thus die.

Have fun wrapping that around your head.

Fertilezed eggs not attaching is a natural process. Abortion is pre-meditated murder.

Don't want kids? Either don't have sex or make sure you are well 'protected'.

You are advocating the right to kill exists? So if I advocated killing the most vociferous supporters of the murderous practice that is abortion, that would be OK by you? :eek:

You can certainly try. I imagine someone else may try to stop you.
And, you made a truly silly staement, that there is no right to kill. How else would you eat?

Careful. I'm cut-and-pasting my answer to Mikesburg, so it may come out as "poetry" ;)
If the abortion of a 9-month fetus is a medical neccesity, hell yes, it should be legal. I repeat, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

You have to Cut
And Paste
For your posts
To appear
as if poetry?
How
Sad.

:D

Greetings, Godwin. And how are you today? I know NSG calls you up a lot, but it just can't be helped.

great, an ad hominem attack that naturally doesn't address the point (ie abortion is murder).

great, an ad hominem attack that naturally doesn't address the point (ie abortion is murder).

That's not an ad hominem attack. It's you proving Godwin's Law. If you have to compare the opposition to Hitler, despite not being racist, homophobic, bigoted in any other way, or fascist, you already lost.

As for abortion is murder, so is the Iraq war and the death penalty, which, if you follow in the views of most of the anti-choice movement, you favor. So, please tell me. When does someone's right to life end? Is it when they're born? When they choose to defend their country? When the kill someone? Please, tell me. I'm interested in which lives are sacred and which ones aren't. It's important to know.

I know. That was the point.



So?

There is no position that is "agreed" upon.



Now you're just repeating yourself.

What's "arbitrary" about them?



Are you really being serious now , I hope not because if you are my respect
for you will drop immensely (yeah I know I'm sure you could care less)

What did you base these criterion on?
If they are not some scientifically approved and agreed standards and
you just chose what you think is important to being a person then that
is pretty much the definition of arbitrary


Yes, and we have been talking about fetuses, not infants or the handicapped. But you decided to bring them in anyway. Why? Because you wanted to see whether or not I applied my standards consistently.


They had to be brought in as part of your justification was based on criteria
that included those groupings.


I think that's fair. And I think it's also fair for me to do the same to you. Since you seem to object to the person/non-person distinction entirely, are you content with giving animals full rights?

You implied "no" - but then you have been so ardently protesting my moral distinctions between humans, so why should you be so much more eager to advocate moral distinctions between species? And why shouldn't you apply the same standard you apply to fetuses to other living entities?

Yeah, I would have a problem with that, too - but it isn't what I suggested.


It seems to me it is exactly what you have suggested.
The only reason you gave to avoid the logical consequences of your logical
conclusions that infants and severely mentally handicapped could be "aborted"
was that there were other options, not that it was contrary to your stance.


But you betray your own hypocrisy.

If you really had a problem with putting things on that "lower level", you would extend the same privilege to the "animals" you consign to there. But you don't - and if you have non-arbitrary reasons for that, they are probably similar to the ones I have referenced with regard to fetuses.


Most of the world and certainly my society put animals on another
and lower level than humans. We breed them to eat and to wear their
hides etc etc
Now there may be a debate about that but it does not belong here.
After all we cannot debate every issue in this one go. This is about abortion
in humans. I believe you can probably accept for the purpose of this debate
that most humans consider other species of animals as other and lesser,
even those we love like horsies and duckies.

My problem is with putting humans on a level with other species at all
and certainly with it happening on the basis of your criteria for personhood.



Because it's necessary for her to exercise her sovereignty.

I fail to see what the need for assistance has to do with anything.

"Because I don't want my body to be used against my will" is a sufficiently legitimate reason, because a woman is sovereign over her body.

At no point did the woman contract herself into carrying the fetus to term.


She played her part in creating it, and it is human life, you may be happy
with the arbitrary setting of a point before which it has no value as a person
but the arbitrary nature of it does bother me.
As we have explored, once you start going down that path, logically doors
open to all kinds of unpleasant things such as the equating of people
who do not meet the criteria set of being non people, and non people not
having a right of sovereignty over their bodies nor a right to life.

If there is no right to life for non people by the standard you laid out could there really be crime of murder for killing these humans.


AFTER birth. The woman has no obligation to carry it that long.

After intervention at 3 or 4 months I believe nowadays.


1. The criterion is not really "invasiveness" but rather sovereignty.
2. It is not much of a stretch to consider pregnancy to be invasive.

It is quite a stretch really.
It can certainly be awkward, very uncomfortable and unpleasant in many
little as well as some quite big ways.
But it is the natural result of choices the woman and her partner made.

Is it not in some way treating a woman as a child or a fool to legislate to
allow her at the cost of a human life to avoid short term consequences of her own decisions.

I appreciate that your argument is that until a set point (which you agree is arbitrary) the state does not grant a right to life to the human life fails to meet the criteria of being a perosn. But given the very nasty doors that opens up is it not an argument to be avoided.

great, an ad hominem attack that naturally doesn't address the point (ie abortion is murder).

It's not ad hominem. You pulled a Godwin. There's no disputing that.

Careful. I'm cut-and-pasting my answer to Mikesburg, so it may come out as "poetry" ;)
If the abortion of a 9-month fetus is a medical neccesity, hell yes, it should be legal. I repeat, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor, and has no place in a political platform.

why doesnt poetry rhyme any more?

of course i agree with you that medical necessity is a good reason for an abortion even in the 9th month. its an unspeakable tragedy that is not done on whim.

that wasnt my question eh?

all rights have limits. thats where politics comes in

where politics doesnt (or shouldnt) come in is as to whether or not its a right. as cat tribe said, you dont vote on human rights.

You would prefer a system where the masses decide the verdict of each case? Rather than laws that apply generally?

The system ain't great... but I don't see a more feasable sytem.

Maybe one where everyone doesn't decide for everyone else? Most laws are crap. They're reactionary. Someone does something someone else doesn't like, so they get everybody else to say "you can't do that." It's all made up. And no one ever seems interested in unmaking laws, even when no one follows them anyway. It's crap. Why does there have to be a system? But, this is getting pretty OT, don't you think?

why doesnt poetry rhyme any more?

of course i agree with you that medical necessity is a good reason for an abortion even in the 9th month. its an unspeakable tragedy that is not done on whim.

that wasnt my question eh?

all rights have limits. thats where politics comes in

where politics doesnt (or shouldnt) come in is as to whether or not its a right. as cat tribe said, you dont vote on human rights.

My answer to your question is you're speaking in generalities where none exist. Everything exists in the particular. There are no generalities.

Edit to add:
Some poetry still rhymes.
Sometimes.

Maybe one where everyone doesn't decide for everyone else? Most laws are crap. They're reactionary. Someone does something someone else doesn't like, so they get everybody else to say "you can't do that." It's all made up. And no one ever seems interested in unmaking laws, even when no one follows them anyway. It's crap. Why does there have to be a system? But, this is getting pretty OT, don't you think?

Yeah, totally OT. My bad. ;)

That's not an ad hominem attack. It's you proving Godwin's Law. If you have to compare the opposition to Hitler, despite not being racist, homophobic, bigoted in any other way, or fascist, you already lost.

As for abortion is murder, so is the Iraq war and the death penalty, which, if you follow in the views of most of the anti-choice movement, you favor. So, please tell me. When does someone's right to life end? Is it when they're born? When they choose to defend their country? When the kill someone? Please, tell me. I'm interested in which lives are sacred and which ones aren't. It's important to know.

It's either 'kill the guilty and spare the innocent' or 'spare all of them', but never 'spare the guilty and kill the innocent'. You and the rest of the anti-life crowd need to get your priorities in order. Because folks like you who gleefully advocate the 'right' to kill unborn life, all tend to oppose killing serial rapist or murderers. Nice going there.

As for Iraq, maybe you should go to the Kurds and tell them you (and the rest of the pro-Saddam crowd) wish Saddam was still in charge. Good luck in getting out of there alive.

And I repeat: an unborn baby is not PART OF a woman's body. It might be inside it for 9 months, dependent on it, but is not PART OF it. Therefore, choice has to include the father (as it would with born children).

Yeah, totally OT. My bad. ;)

Still fun though! :fluffle:

It's not ad hominem. You pulled a Godwin. There's no disputing that.

How many times haven't I seen demented leftists compare Bush to Hitler? If Bush was Hitler, there'd be no democrat left alive today.

It's either 'kill the guilty and spare the innocent' or 'spare all of them', but never 'spare the guilty and kill the innocent'. You and the rest of the anti-life crowd need to get your priorities in order. Because folks like you who gleefully advocate the 'right' to kill unborn life, all tend to oppose killing serial rapist or murderers. Nice going there.

As for Iraq, maybe you should go to the Kurds and tell them you (and the rest of the pro-Saddam crowd) wish Saddam was still in charge. Good luck in getting out of there alive.

And I repeat: an unborn baby is not PART OF a woman's body. It might be inside it for 9 months, dependent on it, but is not PART OF it. Therefore, choice has to include the father (as it would with born children).
I personally advocate retroactive abortion. Let the serial killer's mom pull the switch.

Well then apparently every woman's guilty of it, as 66% of all fertilized eggs fail to attach to the wall of the uterus, and thus die.

Have fun wrapping that around your head.

Lots of people die naturally, people close to them at the time are not guilty
of murder or even manslaughter.

Infants die, thankfully not very many in the western world
As do older children and all adults (eventually)

You may quite reasonably disagree that abortion on the scale it occurs is not like genocide
but you need a better response than this one.

In keeping with the holocaust reference its a tad like saying there was nothing terribly wrong with the mass extermination of the Jews/ Gypsies and others who the Nazis did not like, want or who they considered to be non-people, because those people die naturally all the time.


I'm getting quite annoyed now seeing as this thread has me arguing the case
against abortion when I am not against legal abortion nor legalising abortion where it is not already legal.

Why O Why didn't someone anti abortion start this and do their usual idiocy
of saying abortion is wrong as life is sacred except in the case of rape.

Then I could have been on the better side of this argument.
I would just rather people used other methods of contraception than abortion.
And leave abortion to cases of need not choice.
I'm off to sleep.

How many times haven't I seen demented leftists compare Bush to Hitler? If Bush was Hitler, there'd be no democrat left alive today.

Not true. Hitler didn't kill all the Jews.

It's either 'kill the guilty and spare the innocent' or 'spare all of them', but never 'spare the guilty and kill the innocent'. You and the rest of the anti-life crowd need to get your priorities in order. Because folks like you who gleefully advocate the 'right' to kill unborn life, all tend to oppose killing serial rapist or murderers. Nice going there.

Patently untrue. I'm pro-CHOICE, and I'm for the death penalty. Nice going there.

As for Iraq, maybe you should go to the Kurds and tell them you (and the rest of the pro-Saddam crowd) wish Saddam was still in charge. Good luck in getting out of there alive.

Pro-gettingthefuckoutofIraq does not mean Pro-Saddam. Now on the other hand, given that the insurgency has been steadily growing in number as long as we've been there, anyone who advocates keeping our troops in Iraq must be, by your twisted sense of logic, pro-insurgent. Stop supporting the terrorists.

And I repeat: an unborn baby is not PART OF a woman's body. It might be inside it for 9 months, dependent on it, but is not PART OF it. Therefore, choice has to include the father (as it would with born children).

Good, then take it out of the woman and grow it somewhere else. Until then, the mother's rights as a fully grown adult trump the rights of a clump of flesh, no matter how much it looks like a human being.

How many times haven't I seen demented leftists compare Bush to Hitler? If Bush was Hitler, there'd be no democrat left alive today.

And they pull Godwin's too. Doesn't make you any less Godwinned.

How many times haven't I seen demented leftists compare Bush to Hitler? If Bush was Hitler, there'd be no democrat left alive today.

Hitler may have been mad but he wasn't stupid.

But still a sort of comparison can be made

Puppet Idiot Boy who got power thanks to daddy's friends chasing treats into a war that gets more lost every day
vs
Genocidal dictator with flashes of military brilliance who rose to power against all the odds and very nearly conquered an entire continent.

Still fun though! :fluffle:

Indeed!

However, I'd like to get back to the original point of the thread. Should men have the right to vote on issues of abortion? My argument from my first post in this thread was 'should anyone have the right to vote on issues of abortion?'. I would argue that we should have the right to vote whatever the hell we want, but what can legally pass is determined by the courts' interpretation of pre-existing law and constitution. I don't like the idea of saying what people can or can't vote on, and I like even less the idea that we determine which citizens get to vote on which issue.

However, I am completely fine with the idea of the courts ruling that voting on unconstitional issues, is completely off-base.

So, until the courts rule that abortion is illegal, I agree with you. It's not a matter of vote, it's a matter between a woman and her doctor.

Good, then take it out of the woman and grow it somewhere else. Until then, the mother's rights as a fully grown adult trump the rights of a clump of flesh, no matter how much it looks like a human being.


Even if it didn't look human it would still be human, it can't be anything but human.
Abort them if you like but don't lie to yourself and others.

I personally advocate retroactive abortion. Let the serial killer's mom pull the switch.

A good idea. I think we should no longer say that murderers get the death penalty, but they should get 'extreme late term abortion'. If we call it abortion, all the pro-abortion crowd will be for it!

I could stand the pro-abortion crowd more if they weren't opposed to the death penalty for serial rapists, murderers or someone who raped kids.

To this day, I don't understand how one can be for abortion (terminating innocent life) but oppose the death penalty in clear cases of murder or serial rape (terminating the scum of the earth).

Indeed!

However, I'd like to get back to the original point of the thread. Should men have the right to vote on issues of abortion? My argument from my first post in this thread was 'should anyone have the right to vote on issues of abortion?'. I would argue that we should have the right to vote whatever the hell we want, but what can legally pass is determined by the courts' interpretation of pre-existing law and constitution. I don't like the idea of saying what people can or can't vote on, and I like even less the idea that we determine which citizens get to vote on which issue.

However, I am completely fine with the idea of the courts ruling that voting on unconstitional issues, is completely off-base.

So, until the courts rule that abortion is illegal, I agree with you. It's not a matter of vote, it's a matter between a woman and her doctor.
I'm sure someone's mentioned it before, but if men could get pregnant, abortion would be first on the Bill of Rights. :D

A good idea. I think we should no longer say that murderers get the death penalty, but they should get 'extreme late term abortion'. If we call it abortion, all the pro-abortion crowd will be for it!

I could stand the pro-abortion crowd more if they weren't opposed to the death penalty for serial rapists, murderers or someone who raped kids.

To this day, I don't understand how one can be for abortion (terminating innocent life) but oppose the death penalty in clear cases of murder or serial rape (terminating the scum of the earth).

I think the objection is based on "what constitutes a clear case?" People have been exonerated as many as 20 years after a crime. Executing someone wrongly imprisoned doesn't sound too keen.

Not true. Hitler didn't kill all the Jews.

Because he didn't get the 'chance' to finish the job. Thankfully.

And if it hadn't been for the peace at any price crowd, he shouldn't have had the chance to start to begin with. Britain and France were legally obliged to invade Germany when the latter remilitarized the Rhineland. In failing to do that, Britain and France not only violated several treaties, but were complicit in allowing the Nazi state to become powerful enough to start its murderous practises (of course, the Nazis are primarilly guilty).

It could and should have been stopped before it even started. Were the treaties of Versailles and Taranto (?) not clear in any way?

But of course, the peace at any price crowd would howl forever about how Hitler never attacked anyone (remember, this is 1936), how he didn't have WMD's and how he always talked about peace.

Even if it didn't look human it would still be human, it can't be anything but human.
Abort them if you like but don't lie to yourself and others.

'Cause that's infringing on religion and politician's turf ;)

Because he didn't get the 'chance' to finish the job. Thankfully.

And if it hadn't been for the peace at any price crowd, he shouldn't have had the chance to start to begin with. Britain and France were legally obliged to invade Germany when the latter remilitarized the Rhineland. In failing to do that, Britain and France not only violated several treaties, but were complicit in allowing the Nazi state to become powerful enough to start its murderous practises (of course, the Nazis are primarilly guilty).

It could and should have been stopped before it even started. Were the treaties of Versailles and Taranto (?) not clear in any way?

But of course, the peace at any price crowd would howl forever about how Hitler never attacked anyone (remember, this is 1936), how he didn't have WMD's and how he always talked about peace.

He did have WMD's. He did not use them. Lrn 2 History.

I'm sure someone's mentioned it before, but if men could get pregnant, abortion would be first on the Bill of Rights. :D

*imagines self pregnant*

Yeah, I'd like the option. It's not an option that I like, but I'd like the option.

Because he didn't get the 'chance' to finish the job. Thankfully.

And if it hadn't been for the peace at any price crowd, he shouldn't have had the chance to start to begin with. Britain and France were legally obliged to invade Germany when the latter remilitarized the Rhineland. In failing to do that, Britain and France not only violated several treaties, but were complicit in allowing the Nazi state to become powerful enough to start its murderous practises (of course, the Nazis are primarilly guilty).

It could and should have been stopped before it even started. Were the treaties of Versailles and Taranto (?) not clear in any way?

But of course, the peace at any price crowd would howl forever about how Hitler never attacked anyone (remember, this is 1936), how he didn't have WMD's and how he always talked about peace.
Tsk tsk, you're arguing both sides here! Either accept Bush as Hitler, or stop comparing current events to WWII. You can't have your historical anology and eat it too ;)

How many times haven't I seen demented leftists compare Bush to Hitler? If Bush was Hitler, there'd be no democrat left alive today.

Yeah, but those are justified. I know it sounds like some lame hypocrisy, but they are.

Bush takes away the rights of his people, finds someone to focus the people's hatred on, then starts a bunch of aggressive wars. Not to mention his secret prisons and the Gestapo-like power granted to some government organizations.

Still not gas chambers, but certainly enough to invite comparisons.

Yeah, but those are justified. I know it sounds like some lame hypocrisy, but they are.

Bush takes away the rights of his people, finds someone to focus the people's hatred on, then starts a bunch of aggressive wars. Not to mention his secret prisons and the Gestapo-like power granted to some government organizations.

Still not gas chambers, but certainly enough to invite comparisons.

And Gitmo.

Yeah, but those are justified. I know it sounds like some lame hypocrisy, but they are.

Bush takes away the rights of his people, finds someone to focus the people's hatred on, then starts a bunch of aggressive wars.

Still not gas chambers, but certainly enough to invite comparisons.


I call B.S.

Which rights did Bush take away? You can't mention even a single one of them. Spying on the American people? Ever heard of Echelon, something Clinton approved in 1995? Accusations of vote fraud without any evidence sustaining that (and rather interestingly, the biggest fraud, in Pennsylvania and Washington state, was ignored because the democrats committed it).

Wars by definition are agressive, and the Kurds still thank the US for it. I bet they aren't pleased about all those lefties crying how Saddam never threatened anyone. Why don't you go over to them and tell them that someone like Saddam should be put back in power. Good luck in getting out alive.

I call B.S.

Which rights did Bush take away? You can't mention even a single one of them. Spying on the American people? Ever heard of Echelon, something Clinton approved in 1995? Accusations of vote fraud without any evidence sustaining that (and rather interestingly, the biggest fraud, in Pennsylvania and Washington state, was ignored because the democrats committed it).

Wars by definition are agressive, and the Kurds still thank the US for it. I bet they aren't pleased about all those lefties crying how Saddam never threatened anyone. Why don't you go over to them and tell them that someone like Saddam should be put back in power. Good luck in getting out alive.

Stem cell research.

And Gitmo.

In which, exactly 0 people were ever killed.

And I don't think the Eurocrowd has any right to lecture the US on concentration camps (which Gitmo isn't). The Euros invented it, remember?

Stem cell research.

Stem cell research is a civil right these days? :confused:

Stem cell research using 'material' from aborted babies is morally wrong. Haven't you learned anything from medical 'experiments' somewhere in the past where unwilling human lives were used to do the research?

In which, exactly 0 people were ever killed.

And I don't think the Eurocrowd has any right to lecture the US on concentration camps (which Gitmo isn't). The Euros invented it, remember?

The Jews in concentration camps weren't killed immediately upon arrival.

And at least three inmates have committed suicide due to the conditions there.

Your last line doesn't make any sense. I'm not even of the euro crowd, whatever the hell that is.

Tsk tsk, you're arguing both sides here! Either accept Bush as Hitler, or stop comparing current events to WWII. You can't have your historical anology and eat it too ;)

I was just using the demented logic of the peace at any price crowd :p

Should I not get to vote on issues that primarily affect black people because I'm white? (I say primarily because the notion that a child/abortion would not affect the man's life is ridiculous)

Or maybe only gun owners should be able to vote on gun laws.

You see the problem with restricting a vote based on the impact the new law would have?

Stem cell research is a civil right these days? :confused:

Stem cell research using 'material' from aborted fetuses is morally wrong. Haven't you learned anything from medical 'experiments' somewhere in the past where unwilling human lives were used to do the research?

The banning of a line of scientific research infringes upon the rights of the scientists.

Just like, say, banning tennis.

And those embryos are not people, so it doesn't matter. Yes, I'm pro-stem cell research.

Also: Fixed.

The Jews in concentration camps weren't killed immediately upon arrival.

And at least three inmates have committed suicide due to the conditions there.

I have some relatives who may like to speak to you about that first point. Who saw plenty of their families be taken off the trains to be killed immediately.

3 suicides? Big deal. Remember, they are there for a reason. Or maybe you know a Eurocountry that would volunteer to take 'em all in. All those Eurojournalists who are captured over there (Afghanistan/Iraq) and then released after the Eurocountry releases # number of terrorists.

I have some relatives who may like to speak to you about that first point. Who saw plenty of their families be taken off the trains to be killed immediately.

3 suicides? Big deal. Remember, they are there for a reason. Or maybe you know a Eurocountry that would volunteer to take 'em all in. All those Eurojournalists who are captured over there (Afghanistan/Iraq) and then released after the Eurocountry releases # number of terrorists.

I should have clarified. When the concentration camps were first set up, Jews were not killed. I'll admit that it happened later, but when they were first set up they were not.


I find it amusing that your "pro-life" platform shifts instantly when talking about people held against their will at a maximum security facility without trial and any real legal recourse outside a kangaroo court. You truly are a champion of "pro-life." Hypocrite.

I call B.S.

Feel free too. Hell, call the sky green if you want. Doesn't make it true.


Which rights did Bush take away? You can't mention even a single one of them.

Freedom of Assembly, Habeas Corpus, Speedy and fair trial, Freedom of the Press. A more accurate statement would've been "You can't mention every single one of them"


Spying on the American people? Ever heard of Echelon, something Clinton approved in 1995? Accusations of vote fraud without any evidence sustaining that (and rather interestingly, the biggest fraud, in Pennsylvania and Washington state, was ignored because the democrats committed it).

So because a president most republicans hate did something, it's okay for a republican president to do the same thing?


Wars by definition are agressive
You fail. Many wars are fought against an enemy just to get them the fuck out of your homeland. Then you let them go when they retreat.



and the Kurds still thank the US for it.
Well, in between being blown into tiny bits by Iraqi Government-sponsored Shi'a death squads and Sunni insurgents.


I bet they aren't pleased about all those lefties crying how Saddam never threatened anyone. Why don't you go over to them and tell them that someone like Saddam should be put back in power. Good luck in getting out alive.

Yeah...

Um...

Nobody's saying Saddam should be put back in power. Saddam was not a threat to any people other then those in Iraq.

The banning of a line of scientific research infringes upon the rights of the scientists.

Just like, say, banning tennis.

And those embryos are people, so it does matter but I don't care. Yes, I'm pro-stem cell research. I'll kill as many innocent lives as necessary.

Also: Fixed.

There is a fallacy to your 'infringe upon rights' logic.

Forcing me to pay tax infringes upon my right to benefit from the fruits of my own labor. Maybe tax should be abolished too, like the 'ban' on stem cell research which isn't really a ban because it doesn't ban the research at all, it just bans killing to get the stem cell material.


Oh, and I fixed yours too.

3 suicides? Big deal. Remember, they are there for a reason.

Brown skin?


Isn't it fascinating that the truth is often tasteless?

We just finished a unit on abortion in health class, and one kid brought up a good point; As a man will never give birth, get pregnant, have to deal with all the issues of pregnancy (other than a temperamental wife), ect., should males be able to vote on or decide on the legality of abortion?

I leave the floor open to debate.It's a false dilemma. Nobody has the right to vote away the autonomy of a competent individual. You might as well be asking if people not called Mike also should have the right to vote on whether or not a random individual by the name of Mike is executed in public each Sunday. It doesn't matter if it's your name or not. You have no right to usurp the autonomy of random strangers by popular vote.

But hey, let's have a public vote on whether people who wants to vote on abortion should have their right eye dug out with a wooden spoon.

Are you really being serious now

Yes.

What did you base these criterion on?

It has to do with preferences - their legitimacy and their nature in persons and non-persons. Entities on, for lack of a better term, a higher cognitive plane than others have preferences at a different level than entities on a lower; their preferences count more.

If they are not some scientifically approved and agreed standards

Morality is not a matter of science.

It seems to me it is exactly what you have suggested.
The only reason you gave to avoid the logical consequences of your logical
conclusions that infants and severely mentally handicapped could be "aborted"
was that there were other options, not that it was contrary to your stance.

A lack of personhood is not simply a matter of being less intelligent, healthy, knowledgeable, or strong than other humans.

Most of the world and certainly my society put animals on another
and lower level than humans.

And infanticide has been routine throughout history.

Not that it really matters. "They do it too" is no excuse.

Now there may be a debate about that but it does not belong here.
After all we cannot debate every issue in this one go.

But we can debate infanticide?

If you want me to apply the standards I apply to abortion universally, then you must similarly apply the standards you apply to abortion universally - and I can challenge your consistency.

most humans consider other species of animals as other and lesser

So? "Most humans" think all kinds of wrong things.

My problem is with putting humans on a level with other species at all

Because you make an arbitrary distinction.

She played her part in creating it, and it is human life, you may be happy with the arbitrary setting of a point before which it has no value as a person

"No value as a person," yes. "No value," no.

And it isn't really a "point" - not ethically, anyway (legally, it would have to be.)

but the arbitrary nature of it does bother me.

It's not arbitrary.

As we have explored, once you start going down that path, logically doors open to all kinds of unpleasant things such as the equating of people
who do not meet the criteria set of being non people, and non people not
having a right of sovereignty over their bodies nor a right to life.

Denying any living thing rights is "unpleasant" on some level. Making distinctions of this sort always is; there is a very justified fear of the notion of "classes" of humans.

I can see the argument - but I cannot see why, if it is legitimate, we should not extend it far beyond homo sapiens. The mere fact that we cannot reproduce with non-humans does not mean, in and of itself, that they are inferior to us.

If there is no right to life for non people by the standard you laid out could there really be crime of murder for killing these humans.

No. Which does not mean that it should not be illegal.

But it is the natural result of choices the woman and her partner made.

So what?

It still is another entity using her body against her will.

Is it not in some way treating a woman as a child or a fool to legislate to allow her at the cost of a human life to avoid short term consequences of her own decisions.

Giving someone more freedom is not "treating a woman as a child or a fool."

Banning heterosexual sex because you don't want women to get unwanted pregnancies would be.

There is a fallacy to your 'infringe upon rights' logic.

Forcing me to pay tax infringes upon my right to benefit from the fruits of my own labor. Maybe tax should be abolished too, like the 'ban' on stem cell research which isn't really a ban because it doesn't ban the research at all, it just bans useful research using discarded embryos to get the stem cell material.

Oh, and I fixed yours too.

Incorrect. Taxation is an element of the social contract between the state and the individual.

Fixed.

I'm getting quite annoyed now seeing as this thread has me arguing the case
against abortion when I am not against legal abortion nor legalising abortion where it is not already legal.

Why O Why didn't someone anti abortion start this and do their usual idiocy
of saying abortion is wrong as life is sacred except in the case of rape.

Then I could have been on the better side of this argument.
I would just rather people used other methods of contraception than abortion.
And leave abortion to cases of need not choice.
I'm off to sleep.

Even if it didn't look human it would still be human, it can't be anything but human.
Abort them if you like but don't lie to yourself and others.

I am intrigued by your point of view. In order to facilitate my understanding, could you please correct and/or expand on my understanding of your position as follows:

"Human life begins at conception but should not be accepted as a member of society until birth. Before birth, human life should exist only at the tolerance of the biological mother."

We just finished a unit on abortion in health class, and one kid brought up a good point; As a man will never give birth, get pregnant, have to deal with all the issues of pregnancy (other than a temperamental wife), ect., should males be able to vote on or decide on the legality of abortion?

I leave the floor open to debate.

Absolutely. If I'm going to be stuck with child-support payments just because the girl got pregnant, or some shit (even if it doesn't happen to me I side with the millions of men who it would happen to), I'd damn well better have a say in it.

And, for those who believe in democracy, it'd be undemocratic in principle to deny the right of voting to half your population.

Sure he should have a vote.
In the situation where there is a tie between the voters, the woman should have a casting vote to decide the outcome.

No. It's one of those places that life's unfair for sure. But it's the woman's body, so it's her choice.

But it's also the babies body.

But it's also the babies body.

The "baby" barely has a brain, let alone decision making power.

Wow, when I first saw this thread, I thought it was about whether or not men should be allowed to force their wives/girlfriends/one-night-stands to have abortions. I need more sleep.

Well, yeah. A child's the product of both parents, not just one.

At the very least, if they have to pay for child support after it's born then they should have a say in whether or not the child is born or not. Anything less would be completely unfair and wrong.

Wow, when I first saw this thread, I thought it was about whether or not men should be allowed to force their wives/girlfriends/one-night-stands to have abortions. I need more sleep.
Me too. But then I also need more sleep.

And I know the "other-way-round." A woman got pregnant, decided she didn't want to keep it before having it, the man involved wanted the baby and decided to raise it himself, vetoing her adoption suggestion.

She pays child support.

Secondly, being a single parent's not gravy and groovy for 95 percent of single parents. It's damned hard to make do, especially if the other parent won't pony up. I have no problem with welfare in general, but why on earth would anyone want dads to be able to "opt out" of child support, thus forcing the mother to rely more on the state (especially if she can't get a family or friend free-babysitter and has to rely on daycare which is almost always expensive). This is especially true in cases where the mother has little to no education, because it is hard to find a good job in most places without higher education, and going to college costs a lot of money and time. Not all single moms (or dads, for that matter) have a lot of resources available at their disposal, so why advocate that they should have one less (potential) resource: the child support from the other parent?

And as for men--you don't have to carry it. You don't have to worry about gestational diabetes, about possible death and disfigurement (not terribly likely most of the time but still possible), you don't have to worry most of the time about having to actually be around 24/7 for the child afterward unless you take custody of it. How on earth are you not getting the best deal out of it all even if you have to pay some money? You're quite able to walk away from any woman who wants to have sex with you--the ball's not entirely in her court.

Men should not have the right to decide on abortion. It's not their bodies.

Men should not have the right to decide on abortion. It's not their bodies.

Surely it is about the choice to bring another person into the world rather than whos body it is.

I think this is a complex problem but to try and keep this post below 1k words I will say this. If the potential mother expects the father to look after or comtribute to the childs upbringing then she has a moral duty to consult the father. That does not mean that he has a deciding vote just that she should consult him about what he wants.

But that takes for granted that the baby would be conceived in some sort of decent relationship.

Why shouldnt the male be able to vote in this case? Theres only one way I know of that would be possible to have a child without interacting with a male and thats artificially. And if youre having a child artificially then you probably arent interested in an abortion. Put it this way, you cant discriminate on the issue and allow men not to have a vote because of their gender. If we go to that, then we are reinvoking the societal turbulence that was evident in the 1920s when women were not allowed to vote, or in the 1960s when African-Americans werent permitted to vote. Isnt there a law that states you cant disallow someone from voting on an issue because of their gender? I believe the 5th Amendment doesnt allow the government to deny you basic rights based on race, gender, ethnicity or religious perception. Guess what, they felt the states needed that law too and the 14th Amendment was passed. More specifically it states "no state shall deny to any person within its juridiction equal protection of the laws."

No. Whether or not a woman wishes to continue or terminate her pregnancy has nothing to do with any man.

I see no reason to consider the child a day after birth as morally different from the fetus a day before. Dunlaoire pointed out, accurately, that it would be arbitrary and inconsistent to do so.Why is birth any more arbitrary than sentience?

The unborn child may be INSIDE the woman's body, but it is not PART OF it.Aborted fetuses aren't children.

Wars by definition are agressive, and the Kurds still thank the US for it. I bet they aren't pleased about all those lefties crying how Saddam never threatened anyone. Why don't you go over to them and tell them that someone like Saddam should be put back in power. Good luck in getting out alive.

Aggression is aggressive, but an aggressive war is one where the country
being spoken about is the initiator of that war and invades other countries
territory.

Saddam invading Iran or Kuwait were wars of aggression
Iran fighting back was not.
The UN authorised coalition forcing Iraq out of Kuwait was not a war of aggression
The invasion of Iraq was.
World War 2 was a war of aggression on the part of the axis countries
the allied countries were fighting against that.

I am intrigued by your point of view. In order to facilitate my understanding, could you please correct and/or expand on my understanding of your position as follows:

Human life begins at conception - by any reasonable science or definition of the word.

but should not be accepted as a member of society until birth. - I have never said this

Before birth, human life should exist only at the tolerance of the biological mother. - and I have never said this

What I have said is that while I deeply disapprove of abortion as a "choice"
and find many of the pro abortion arguments to be statements of an unjustified position, (foetuses are not human) or logical arguments that leave doors open to very
unpleasant situations, such as beginning to strip the state given right to life away
from people who don't meet other people's views of being a proper person.

the anti abortion crowd also irritate with their relatively random arguments, mainly it tends to be what you might call moderates who annoy
as they will say that abortion is wrong because human life is sacred, but
can still see their way to make an exception in the case where a woman is pregnant as the result of rape.

Now no one wants to have someone forced to carry to term a pregnancy
that has occurred in those conditions but they tend not to see that being
able to make an exception in those circumstances, blows their reason for being
against abortion in the first place out of the water.

Abortion unfortunately is one of those complex human issues that is never
going to be resolved satisfactorily and so we end up legislating for what
people do rather than on any core system of values or logic.

So it should be available but people really should be discouraged from using
abortion as a choice, it cheapens and demeans us all when people do so.

Men should not have the right to decide on abortion. It's not their bodies.

Damn right

only babies should have the right to decide
it is their body after all that gets dismembered.

We just finished a unit on abortion in health class, and one kid brought up a good point; As a man will never give birth, get pregnant, have to deal with all the issues of pregnancy (other than a temperamental wife), ect., should males be able to vote on or decide on the legality of abortion?

I leave the floor open to debate.

Yes. If it weren't for MEN voting FOR abortion rights, in Italy women wouldn't have the right to decide (most women back in 1970 were still quite anti-feminist and staunchly conservative-catholic).
Besides that, men have to deal with the issues of pregnancy, like caring for the mother of their child, before and after birth.

However, IF you want to build two different, separate societies (one for males and one for females) this could be a good starting point... yay, apartheid, good idea, millions of south africans say that... NOT!

Men should not have the right to decide on abortion. It's not their bodies.

The evolutionary happenance that women are biological incubators in our species seems to make them think they are the sole owners of such rights. Look at it from a seahorse's point of view.

The OP didn't include a joke option. WTF?

The magic of child-support and visitation rights make this more complicated than it should be. So I don't think I'll get involved.

I would say rather, that a man should have no say in the abortion decision either way, but if he is adamantly opposed to supporting a child, then he should have some ability to sever his connections with that child before it is born. That may in fact influence the decision of the woman to bring the child to term, but that's not the same as giving the man an actual legal say in whether that happens or not.
Agreed.

But you also say:
That's tough, quite frankly. That's the sort of responsibility a man embarks upon when he gets a woman knocked up. It's a before and after type of responsibility, but the in-between is completely up to the woman. That is, until men become physically able to carry a child to term.
Which is kinda the opposite...


Although - one point on the "That's the sort of responsibility a man embarks upon when he gets a woman knocked up." comment - surely this is exactly the same logic used by the anti-choice bunch when they say the woman made the choice when she got knocked up?

He'll have responsibilty for the child, if born, to support it, so most certainly.


I agree with Cluichstan

Why is birth any more arbitrary than sentience?

Because something that isn't sentient can't suffer and can't have desires. Thus, sentience is a meaningful difference in moral status - what is it exactly that we would respect about a non-sentient entity?

Birth, on the other hand, is merely a transfer of location. What does it have to do with the moral status of the being that is transferred?

Should I not get to vote on issues that primarily affect black people because I'm white? (I say primarily because the notion that a child/abortion would not affect the man's life is ridiculous)

Or maybe only gun owners should be able to vote on gun laws.

You see the problem with restricting a vote based on the impact the new law would have?

MY point is that NO ONE except the woman and her doctor have ANYTHING to say about any pregnancy. Politics has no place in the bedroom or the doctor's office. NO ONE should be able to vote on abortion as an issue.

The banning of a line of scientific research infringes upon the rights of the scientists.

Just like, say, banning tennis.

And those embryos are not people, so it doesn't matter. Yes, I'm pro-stem cell research.

Also: Fixed.

Just for the record, and to show what a non-issue stem cell research is, the government has NOT banned such research, they just won't fund it. Most labs now have parrallel programs in place, one gov't funded, one privately, and are pursuing both lines of research. No scientists were harmed in the making of this post ;)

Just for the record, and to show what a non-issue stem cell research is, the government has NOT banned such research, they just won't fund it. Most labs now have parrallel programs in place, one gov't funded, one privately, and are pursuing both lines of research. No scientists were harmed in the making of this post ;)

Fair enough.

Well, yeah. A child's the product of both parents, not just one.

At the very least, if they have to pay for child support after it's born then they should have a say in whether or not the child is born or not. Anything less would be completely unfair and wrong.

Ah, Vet. How much of a say? If the split is 50-50, who decides? Isn't a 49% say the same as no say at all?

This is a tough issue for me. In an ideal world each case of abortion would be dealt with on an individual basis, for example pregnancy due to rape, one night stand, defective condom, etc etc. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and as such general standards are needed.

To that end I'd have to say yes. If a guy can make a baby, then be forced to support that child for the next 18 years, he should have the right to say he wants the child aborted. If the woman refuses abortion then the man should be allowed to go on with his life, without having to worry about supporting a child he did not want.

Let's face it, sex is fun. Yes accidents happen, (defective condoms for the loss) however (in many cases) both the man and woman are consenting to sex without protection. If a woman is concenting to sex without protection and then gets pregant well it's like walking outside in the middle of a thunderstorm, you should have expected to get drenched!

A man should not have his life hampered because he and his lover/one night stand/wife/mistress whatever agreed to let him deposit his seed inside her. It's fun and it feels good. However, if it is concentual sex and the woman does get pregant and chooses to have the baby. The man should not be forced into supporting the child if he chooses not to. That in a sense is a form of indentured servitude.