Should men have a say in abortion ?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by RainbowSingularity, May 25, 2019.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    While i think most men wish to be able to have an ability to choose, how many men are willing to put their own life, income and career on the line ?

    is the concept of risk equal to mens ability to conceive the reality that they have no personal risk or physical bodily accountability from ?

    a body of their peers, whom decide what is legally just for abortion ? peers = women

    thoughts ... ?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    If someone tried to abort your life, would you want someone to step in on your behalf? Would it matter whether they were man or women?
    sculptor likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member


    denying health care to people (in the usa) is actively aborting their life
    denying people really expensive drugs to combat cancer is aborting peoples life
    denying people housing food and health care is aborting peoples lifes

    currently the usa government is denying military veterans money to pay for their medications so they slowly get aborted.
    denying people operations which means the are forced to take pain killer drugs that kill them is aborting peoples lifes

    are you going to give your opinion ?

    The Dealth penalty is aborting someones life

    are all the anti abortionists (self acclaimed pro lifers) also anti death penalty ?
    wegs, Jeeves and sweetpea like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    So your answer is to kill them before they exit the womb. Very logical, Mr. Spock.
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    If men are willing to assume the responsibility for the child, then, YES they should have a say.
    However the final say still resides with the woman who will bear and nurse and care for the child as only a mother can do.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Of course they should; every man should have the same right to terminate a pregnancy he is carrying as a woman.

    • • •​

    He gets precisely what say she gives him. It' is also rather quite sickening—

    —to watch people pretend the nobility of giving her their permission to have her human rights.
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Ain't nobody ever asked for my permission to abort!

    and at my age, this doesn't seem likely
    that path will remain untraveled
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    transference of your psychopathy duly noted.

    you assert your own inability to show opinion on a moral that you subject others to.

    you appear to lack empathy while using the anti-abortion side of the debate to have power over others as a form of self validation of your own installed sense of self victimization.

    why do you want others to feel sorry for you ?
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Yes. But not the final say.
    Michael 345 and wegs like this.
  13. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    I don't know, Rainbow. You started the thread. I thought you were wanting a reply.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Let's try to make sense of that:

    You must be talking about a woman whose life is threatened by an unwanted pregnancy, and wants a doctor to step in on her behalf.

  15. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    "Abort the baby or the woman gets it." Is that your argument, ice?
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Haven't men said quite a lot on the subject already?
    I figure, if we can limit the length of time a debater gets to talk and give his opponent an equal length of time...
    women should be"saying" for about 5000 years.
    If the outcome is not as good as the outcome of the first speaker was, we'll switch back.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Which, in turn, only begs the question why you would pretend to give it.

    The entire pretense of this thread is askew from the outset; there is an underlying question of risk worth exploring, but as the topic post shows, it's a difficult one to set up properly.

    But as we roll through it, note what is generally missing:

    #2↑: Appeal to fallacy, but so loosely sketched we can select from a sickly bunch. Appeals to aesthetics, or emotion, which is nearly the same, or selfishness.

    #4↑: Appeal to aesthetics; ontological fallacy asserting to define personhood.

    #5↑: What men can buy, versus the obligations by which a woman can have the final say over what takes place in her own body.

    #7↑: What about the men; shift of context.

    #9↑: What about the men?

    #10↑: Inabilty or refusal to address and explain one's own fallacy (cf., #4 above).​

    I won't dispute, say, Iceaura at #11↑, because his abrupt introduction of the missing consideration would, by its apparent artifice, make its own point; the fact that he cannot address this fundamental component without changing the subject so severely speaks volumes about the brief discussion preceding him.

    What is generally missing is the fact of women themselves. This is why I made the point that a man gets precisely what say she gives him. There is another abortion discussion, occurring in the Politics subforum↗, and what stands out about that discussion, and especially your own post earlier today—

    —is how we might as well throw back over six years↗ to a catastrophic discussion taking place over the course of fifteen or sixteen months, in which consideration of this notion, of weaving life-at-conception personhood [LACP°] into the social contract, short-circuited the anti-abortion argument; at the end of it all, the one thing the anti-abortion argument could not do, and even brought many pro-choicers to falter, was the same thing missing from the present dicussion, which is an explicit acknowledgment of a woman's human rights. For anti-abortion advocates, acknowledging the humanity and human rights of a woman explodes their argument to dusts of windblown fancy, and makes the anti-abortion argument that much more difficult to comprehend and present.

    This is a part that doesn't change, much. In Roe, the Court refused to answer a question nobody had been able to answer before, about what constitutes the beginning of life that is at stake in this discussion. The anti-abortion response has simply been to insist, loudly, and the one advantage they enjoy about that is how many people who would otherwise not be anti-abortion just can't cope with the idea that women are human beings who have human rights. Even those ostensibly pro-choice advocates are giving their permission, because they just can't countenance an outcome whereby women don't need that noble, compassionate dispensation.

    It comes up; a couple years ago, in questions of history and theology, I encountered a circumstance in which one would play Devil's Advocate in order to grant some point of argument, except, as I noted at the time↗, it was utterly extraneous. The whole point of granting concessions seemed to be the exercise in claiming such authority and showing such magnanimity. And for our present purpose, sure, it should be enough to note that there comes a point where people grudgingly concede the fact that reality exists, and observe the tendency by which people would rather posture themselves as somehow above all that, such that they can kindly allow reality to be what it is. And, honestly, if one is extraneously granting that God exists because it's easier to pick on people than have a clue, yeah, that just about makes sense, behaviorally speaking; people are human, after all.

    But in our moment, here, it serves to remind of priorities. Women do not need anyone's permission to exist; a woman's existence is not something to be parceled and allowed according to how it compares to anyone's sentiments on existential masculinity. The only reason people pretend she needs anyone else's permission is because those people want the authority of giving her permission.

    This isn't actually difficult to comprehend. The hard part is getting over traditionalist existential pride.


    ° LACP is actually a misnomer. Life at conception would actually refer to implantation of the blastocyst, which can occur several days after the life-at-conception argument intends; what they really intend is the assignment of personhood at fertilization, and this fertilization-assigned personhood [FAP] is an ontological sleight. Instead of figuring out what nature tells us about how the world works, and deriving our legislation therefrom, FAP advocates would legislate the ontology from which subsequent legislation would be derived. The one thing fappers cannot afford is to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women.
    wegs likes this.
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    There was no "you" at the time that decision was made, just as there is no "him" or "her" with an opinion, or a preference, when a blastocyte fails to attach to the uterine wall, or attaches to the fallopian tube, or the embryo is fatally defective and miscarries. By the time an actual person exists to wish they had never been born, it's too late for anyone to abort, and that person is forced to self-terminate - if they are physically capable and at liberty; otherwise they depend on others to "step in" and make decisions for and about their survival, care and welfare.
  19. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Nah, there's no way that Bowser is an Amorite--semi-nomadic "people of raiders, with animal instincts, like wolves" does not seem an apt characterization for whatever the hell Bowser is. And didn't the king of Ur build the wall to keep the Amorites out?
    Bells likes this.
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    the traditionalists still consider and indoctrinate little girls as a slave class.
    they are psychologically crippled/abused from birth to be the fragile victim of the male dominated world.
    The caged pet.

    Part of that problem is that the process feeds a sense of the human animals need to dominate other things, like torturing another animal to near death just to feel powerful and self validated.

    my fav sign soo far is
    "keep your rosaries off my ovaries"

    the morally honest decision(in their perverse world) for a law of pro choice would be to make all womens health care free and paid for by the government.
    that way the mans pet animal... "the woman" is considered the sacred cow chattel of the man state.
    but even those men so bitterly psychologically and morally twisted can not bring their inner man-baby selfish psychopath to give women something that they don't get.
    the answer comes "oh yes i agree, we should talk about that... as soon as we change the law on this issue, we will definitely talk about that, it sounds like a great idea".
    ...talking softly to the man-pet-human-slave-woman
    like a groomer
    notice the similarities.
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    what sex is the fetus ?
    what is its IQ ?
    is it black or white ?
    what sexual orientation is the baby jesus ?

    does it have a name ? surely it MUST have a name by law if it is a legal human.
    you cant have a legal human with no name and not registered.
    you must also register its sex so it knows which bathroom to use when in the usa.
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Bowser doesn't empathise with women.
    he cant
    but he has come to terms with that by giving himself a sense of superiority instead of a sense of loss.(relatively typical emotional issue for the babyboomer set)
    but the crying child inside can still be heard.
    he knows this
    while he knowingly plays the role by miss directing the nature of the topic and attempting to side step giving an opinion of factual moral position, so he may play both sides to allow himself to not be drawn into the real world of empathy or no empathy.

    he is not alone in that
    it just makes it harder to comprehend because his IQ is higher than the average bible bashing church cult member type personality.

    baby-boomers cant place compassion and empathy into an individual value of seperate terms to the entity's right to be an individual.
    it is as much an evolutionary step as much as a brainwashed morality of religion.
    everything is compartmentalized with a strong dissasociation because the emotional ability is to complex to comprehend when the base morals and ethics have been attached so long to the Ego.
    this is why as babyboomer leaders get older they turn crazy and become more blood thirsty instead of becoming more easy going.
    usa has this on show in its institutions and leadership roles

    he plays his part(she puts the lotion on its skin)
    he plays it well.
    he enjoys it. thats good we all need to enjoy something, even if that something is killing other life forms, like hunting for pleasure.
    after all.. we are killers, predators by nature yes ?
    that is gods will and gods decree

    god made man to be a killer
    and men go to woman for salvation and repentance for being that killer
    so when women kill, that defys mans godly Ego as being not superior and so unjustly non deserving of special dispensation to salvation.
    This drives many men to murder
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  23. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Are women equal to men? Are men equal to women?
    RainbowSingularity likes this.

Share This Page