Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by RainbowSingularity, May 25, 2019.
Suppose he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't want to... should he still have a say?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That it's his child by consensual sex may - may - give him the privilege of respectful and courteous attempts at persuasion and the privilege of being informed of the woman's decision. Depends on circumstances.
• Here's when a man makes his decisions: First, when he engages sexual intercourse; second, when his seminal fluid touches her body. From there, every last drop of risk he contributes is his risk to bear. (#76↑)
Or, more directly:
• He had his say when he left his stuff laying around where it shouldn't be. (#169↑)
It comes up, from time to time, a result of Actually Necessarily Unfortunately Symptomatic Ego Defense° among the indefensible.
• What happens to the zygote is up to her, unless life happens to compel an outcome regardless of her opinion. A man already had his say, at this point; she is dealing with something else. (#217↑)
Seriously, at some point those demanding men have some proprietary say over what occurs in a woman's body need to come up with something more than insensate, squeaky insistence.
° Or, ANUS-ED, for shorthand, and more colloquially described as just more shit to deal with for the sake of chronic assholes requiring special accommodation.
You are attempting to confuse two separate issues.
A - I neither claim nor desire a say in anyone's choice to procreate or not, and I do not believe any other outsider has the moral right to do so.
("Any other" includes you.)
As a good citizen, it is my business to support morally sound public policy. As a good human, it is my obligation to protect the personal rights and freedoms of all people, any sex, any gender. As a member of a civilized society, it is my duty to oppose anyone who abrogates those rights and freedoms, or attempts to limit them for any reason and by any means that I do not consider legitimate. ("Anyone" includes you.)
I consider your arguments against women's procreative freedom implausible and your method of presenting them deplorable to the point of basketworthiness.
Therefore, I cannot recognize your attempts to curtail women's reproductive freedom legitimate.
I do have a say in the making of laws.
What laws? Forcing the woman to bring the pregnancy to term regardless what her say in the making of law is?
That's a law that's been passed many times, by many legislatures in many states. At no time and in no place with my support. When anyone who purports to 'represent' me in a legislative body fails to oppose such a bill or motion, he (nearly always he) loses my vote forever. That's pretty much all the direct say I have in law-making.
I did, however, take some action toward legalizing contraceptives for women, teaching contraception in school, abortion, uncensored DH Lawrence in libraries, and equal marriage. Other issues I have supported don't figure here.
(Please check post before reprimanding people.)
Sorry if that sounded accusatory. It was intended only as a direct question.
Roe v Wade allows abortion by law, yet several states completely ignore this and just find ways to skirt a Federal Law. Federal Law is settled. The only active legislation is designed to outlaw abortion, or make it available only to those who can afford to pay for travel and private abortion services. The poor who can least afford the expense of raising a child are forced deliver and pay for it out-of-pocket on penalty of prosecution.
And being succesful in many cases by just closing abortion clinics, many of them offering comprehensive service in connection with Planned Parenthood and medical services for the welfare of pregnant women, including delivery facilities, thus depriving everyone from easy local access to healthcare.
These clinics are being treated as Faustion advocates for murder and doctors are afraid for their own lives, lest some nut decides that in order to save a fetus he has to kill a doctor. All in the name of "sanctity of life" Ain't that a crock?
& they agreed to all terms and conditions on seeking that accommodation.
they get a no money back, no returns, all risk total accountability with no power of attorney.
no big surprise that American culture is unable to be accountable for its own actions and use that as a moral proxy.
no soldier left behind !
unless they are at home in the usa sick with life time diseases and illnesses caused by their job, and in which case they can beg on the street if they want some money to pay for medication.
we dont see pro-lifers(Anti-Abortionista's) protesting for those veterans do we.
Conservatives & Republicans making laws to endorse slavery.
this is the proof.
it is very simple and not complicated at all.
they wish to maintain a breeding population of poor people whom they can buy & sell as slaves.
They pretend that they dont by taking all the public services money away from those very same poor tax payers.
then claim it to be a position of clever business tactics to make the community rich by denying them money for health care and public services.
they are a disease.
parading about pretending to care about humans and all life etc.
Ah, but there's the rub. Every law is settled at the time it's passed and signed. Then it's contested through the courts, and eventually comes before the Supreme Court. Then it's settled again. Until it's challenged and the Supreme rules again, at which time it may be overturned.
Nothing is carved on stone tablets. No, of course that's no more true than the other. People chisel all kinds of laws into stone, and the monoliths are also overturned.
Which is just as well, or you wouldn't have any of the good amendments.
It ain't never over, no matter which lady sings. You can never relax and take anything for granted, because the bastards who want to their slaves back never relax.
(But at least you always know what they're up to, because they accuse you of doing whatever dastardly thing they're planning to do.)
Laws are passed by congress. If it ends up in court that is because the law is being challenged. In the case of Roe v Wade it was the Constitution itself which was being challenged.
Roe v Wade is a SCOTUS case that was a decision on a challenge and was consequently ruled in favor of a woman's rights as granted by the Constitution.
IMO, any consequent challenge is directly aimed at Constitutionally Settled Law of the land.
You mean that every four years all constitutional laws can be challenged in court? I believe SCOTUS has the option to refuse a case and just allow a lower court ruling to stand, no?
You "lost interest" when the questions started getting too difficult for you, as usual. You're great on the one-line replies and the scattergun attempts to deflect, not so hot on reasoned arguments.
Like every other question I've asked you, you have failed to answer this one. I see a pattern. If we're going to have a discussion, we need good faith and honesty on both sides. Can you do that? If so, go back and respond to the posts of mine that you ignored or attempted to deflect.
Rape is relevant here because currently in the United States, like I said, legislatures have passed abortion prohibition laws that explicitly do not exempt pregnancy due to rape. I have asked you directly what your opinion is on the absence of even this exemption. You have ignored or attempted to deflect. Why is that?
No. Who has suggested that?
What are you talking about? Nobody disputes that unborn embryos, foetuses, babies are human life.
Are you saying that you advocate forcing women who have been raped to carry their pregnancies to term? Be honest. Tell me you position on that. And, if you do support that, what's your plan for the children of these unwanted pregnancies after birth? Do you advocated forcing women to rear those children, too? If not, then what?
At what point does a consideration of the life of the women herself come into your thinking, if at all?
Keep in mind that you trying to control what she does with her own body. What gives you that right, by the way?
Consider this radical idea:
A man deciding that a woman should have an abortion is just as bad as a man deciding that a woman should not have an abortion.
What say you about that?
More "practical"? What do you mean? Economically, of course abortion is cheaper than raising a child. But nobody is advancing an economic argument for abortion here.
There are a number of proven social benefits to be had by permitting free access to abortion. A society without unwanted children is a better society for everybody, including the children who you say you care so much about.
That all depends. What are you going to do after you finish convincing her? Are you going to help her to raise the child?
You want to insert yourself into her decision-making process, so I assume you will take responsibility for the outcomes you cause. Is that correct?
No. I don't agree with that. But you'll need to be specific. What are these options you're referring to, and how are you determining what is most or least desirable? Is this about what the pregnant woman desires, or about what you desire, or something else?
Making safe abortion accessible to women is undeniably good.
Let's unpack what this "say" of yours is supposed to entail, exactly.
If you want to say "I don't approve of women having abortions", then you are free to have that say.
If you want to say "I wouldn't have an abortion if I was a woman", then you can say that too, but it makes you look a bit silly, because you really have no idea what you'd do if you were a woman in that situation. It's just an old white guy talking about stuff he doesn't know much about.
If you want to say "I get to choose whether a woman can have an abortion" then that's not a say you have any right to. It's not your body. You don't have any prerogative to control what women do with their own bodies.
When you get pregnant, then you can choose whether or not to have an abortion. It will be your body and your choice. Until then, you have no right to choose.
The arguments appear to be pretty basic...
Pro-Choice: A woman has a right to control her body.
Pro-Life: The unborn have a right to life.
If I've missed anything, let me know.
But wouldn't that also be true of 33 amendments? There's precedent, I think.
Not every law every four years, but any particular law, any day. Laws are challenged all the time - rescinded, voided, superseded, struck down. As I say, that's good, because otherwise you'd still have child labour and lots of other really bad stuff. Women's rights were not granted by the constitution: they didn't get to vote until the 19th amendment, which didn't give them the right to open a bank account, buy a house or even take a job without their husband's consent.
Then there is the whole murky issue of the issue, which people are still wrestling and agonizing over.
Of course. But that depends on who, exactly, SCOTUS is at the moment. some pretty weird shit happens
What have you missed?
This is not a forum where these sorts of questions or issues can be discussed or apparently even thought about.
This discussion(?) is a waste of time.
You're missing that these two rights that you mention compete against one another. That requires a nuanced adjudication of whose rights trump whose, and under what circumstances and with what limits (if any).
The usual position taken by the anti-abortion crowd (and I suppose by you and Musika) is that from the moment of conception the unborn foetus should be treated essentially like an adult human being (or at least as a child who has been born) when it comes to the "right" to life. Moreover, you hold that as soon as this right to life accrues in the foetus, thereafter the desires of the mother are irrelevant. Moreover, you hold that it is therefore acceptable for the state to force the mother to carry the unborn child to term and to birth it, thus abrogating the mother's rights to bodily autonomy to decision makers who have no intention of taking responsibility for the resulting child. Or, to put it in a nutshell, you think it's appropriate to remove choice from the mother and to control her using the full apparatus of the state, including such apparatus as throwing her and/or her doctor in jail for 100 years if she doesn't comply.
If I've missed anything, let me know.
Also, I take it you're not going to respond to any of the questions I've put to you. Is that correct?
Apparently, you're unable or unwilling to have an honest discussion about the matter. So be it.
You have privately made it clear which way you are going to swing if there is a dilemma between your personal political agenda and forum guidelines. My, or anyone else's, honesty or lack of it has zero bearing.
That's all very cryptic.
To which private communication are you referring? A date should allow me to find it. Perhaps we can continue the discussion privately.
I don't recall ever saying anything to you privately about any political agenda I might have.
It's sounds like you're saying you're afraid to discuss the abortion issue with me because you fear that I will punish you for having a different view on the matter than I do. Is that what you're saying? Your fear of my reaction doesn't seemed to have dampened your enthusiam for the topic up to this point in the thread.
I think it does. If you find, for whatever reason, you can't bring personal integrity to a discussion of this topic, then maybe you're right that it's better for you to stay out.
I guess there is a chance you haven't been the one moving and shaking on the moderation front (or, more specifically, communicating why you are refraining from it) and are thus genuinely oblivious, but all this talk is coming across as a sort of coy prop or veiled threat. To say the least, unless you are normalized around your professional life as a high level bureaucrat in North Korea, you are choosing a very strange moment to assert your "fear factor".
As a matter of interest, on this hosting platform at any time, have you ever encountered any discussion with any "honest" individual on this subject whose opinions are diametrically opposed to yours?
Or does the degree that their political view diverges from yours determine the degree of honesty that is present?
Is that you and yours have the monopoly on honesty (by virtue of the said political outlook)?
But that question aside, I think you are wrong.
Above and beyond one's personal estimations of another's dis/honesty and/or political affiliations is the platform that discussion takes place on.
Its kind of like ordering food at a restaurant. It may be good or bad food (by either one's personal tastes or something more objective). But regardless, there should be no need to request that they bring it to you on a plate.
Do you think that contributors may avoid this sub-forum, much like they may avoid a restaurant where the waiter just throws down slop on a table?
Anyway, at the end of the day, its basically you who runs this site, so you alone are accountable for its successes. There are advantages to running it like one's facebook page, but also quite a few disadvantages. This was touched on in this thread ... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/most-interesting-topic-on-sciforums.161519/
I guess you could split hairs on whether things, on a site level, are done rightly or wrongly, but as long as its in the maelstrom of an identity crisis, there is no real point of bearing to measure such valuations against.
Separate names with a comma.