Should men have a say in abortion ?

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

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Contributing tax is probably not the best place to start.
    But, as a short introduction, we value life by seeing it as an object (An entity unto itself) and not a subject (An entity unto myself). As such, a person spending millions on themself (as a high performing administrator or leader) could work out as greater value than someone helping others (driven by a mundane thirst for fame or the thrill of having people dependant on them).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,761
    I'm not asking you, or them, for anything.
    I'm saying that, since you consider respect for living people and concern for their welfare impossible , I cannot believe that you sincerely value human life.
    Therefore, your position on this one issue must be motivated by something other than concern for human life.
    Every reasonable human being on earth.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    That introduction needs to be amplified.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,937
    We don't live in a society that views the worth of a person solely based on their output, or what he/she contributes to society. Although Trump would like to change that mindset. This is why Trump sees no value in immigrants, and why he wants a meritocracy system - he only views an immigrant as having worth it seems, based on what he/she can contribute to society, in terms of taxes, output, consumerism, etc. He views an immigrant as not being as valuable as a fetus. That just reeks of political agenda-ism, and doesn't seem to depict someone who is supportive of all life, in all stages.

    So, the term pro-life seems to be a convenient term for politicians who want to pick and choose the life that they deem valuable.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Yes you are.
    You just gave an extensive "to do" list that has to be completed in order for them to garner credibility.

    Don't forget, you are also failing by the same standard.
    Or is it only important for other people, particularly those you disagree with, to provide for every single child on the planet, craft amazing social policy that sees them resolve issues without recourse to martial processes, and so on?

    Great.
    Then it should be very easy for you to give us a few examples of persons who are making adequate arrangements for every child on the planet and so forth. Given the state of the world, I imagine they are quite famous and easily identifiable.
    I mean it's not like the criteria you previously gave for establishing credibility is absurdly utopian in any way, is it?
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    It should serve sufficiently in its current state to thoroughly disregard paying taxes as the first and last word in defining the value of life.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    I'm not measuring "output" in financial terms. If somebody's output consists solely of taking care of the sick, with no financial return at all, I would consider them a very valuable person.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    On the contrary, if you say taxation is not a valid measure for the value of life, you need to tell us what is.
     
  12. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If in one foul swoop, you just condemned most people under the age of twelve to the status of non-value, you probably have a bit more explaining to do.
     
  13. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,937
    I understand what you're saying. I don't look at a person's value in terms of their output, though. Like if someone has no ability to earn a living or help others, etc on their own, for whatever the reason, he/she still has value.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    I don't consider that "no output".
     
  15. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,937
    Okay.
     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    Since I didn't, I don't. I'm saying exactly the opposite, that everybody has value.

    But I'm asking how you measure value, such that an unborn fetus has value.
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    If it has value as a subject unto itself, it's a question of all or nothing, not measurement.
    Something either has the quality of life or it doesn't.
    Granted there can be some tricky territory, such as in the case of being on life support, or the utility of other life forms for further sustenance. But in the case of the fetus, it's pretty clear cut.

    Btw, could have sworn you just said something or other about paying tax determining value.
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    Clearly not, since we're comparing the value of the fetus, the host and the sperm donor.

    The fetus is unable to express itself, so some people take it upon themselves to speak for it and they often give it a value equal to that of the host. The question of this thread is whether or not the sperm donor is valuable enough to be the tie-breaker.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,471
    And here we reach the heart of the matter.

    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.

    To consider your source article:

    Susan Appleton, a professor at the Washington University School of Law, has written extensively on reproduction and regret, most recently for the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. She told me that in family law, there is a strong policy of "personal responsibility." Or, in other words, "Dubay made the choice to engage in heterosexual intercourse without using contraception himself; he assumed the risk of becoming a parent when he ejaculated."

    Appleton teaches cases like Dubay v. Wells to students in her Family Law course who she says love discussing it. "They appreciate Dubay's arguments about unfairness and inequality, but they almost always reach the conclusion that no other outcome is possible."

    Ten years later, the status quo that Dubay challenged in Dubay v. Wells remains in place today. And there haven't been many similar lawsuits since, in part because of the precedent set by the outcome of Dubay v. Wells.

    Politicians have also declined to propose legislative changes that would allow men to have reproductive rights, perhaps due to the assumption that doing so would open the proverbial floodgates and result in an unprecedented number of men opting out of fatherhood. For the foreseeable future, at least, the idea of a man's right to choose will continue to gather dust in the legal history books.


    (Lawton↱)

    If we consider the point of unintended pregnancy itself: That a man could not keep it together when it absolutely matters does not confer unto him ownership of another human being, nor anything taking place inside that person; he does, however, assume liability for the consequences of his actions.

    One of the interesting things to watch in the abortion discourse is an aspect mentioned earlier↑:

    • 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.​

    Sometimes, what we see is simply what it is. That is, many who can recite basic talking points about a woman's right to choose are simply reciting the talking points as a way of participating in the discourse. There are, within that larger set, however, another important subset, and these are utterly selfish; the bluntest expression is that they need women to have abortion access so that they might escape child support. Also, as previously noted about this thread in general, women are an existential reality who do not need anyone else's permission to exist and function; as such, this part is simple: Neither can anyone force her to terminate a pregnancy, and occasional assertions to the other occur under extraordinary circumstances that are, themselves, of dubious pretense to legitimacy. That is to say, sure, it happens, but we can only deal with that by dealing with the larger problem, such as what goes on in human trafficking and managed sex trade; i.e., the fact that coerced abortion occurs in the world does not inherently justify itself.

    Quite honestly, if the existential fact of womanhood is insufficient to prevent the monopoly on coercive force from requiring her pregnancy until its natural end, sure, my cynicism is willing to remind that of course masculine incompetence is sufficient reason to invoke the monopoly on coercive force to require a woman to terminate a pregnancy because some man doesn't want to account for his offspring, but that is largely because there isn't really a rational justification for either masculine incompetence or some stupid and selfish privilege thereunto, but that is essentially what it comes down to, and the discussion is already afoot, and has been for decades, and it's time for men to stop treating their own sexual inadequacy or fears thereof as something to blame on everybody else. In the end, these pretenses of masculine privilege do share a common element, which is harm. As unpleasant a consideration as this might be, it should not be surprising save for the reality of neurotic disruption; that is to say, yes, the cognitive dissonance on this one is generally painful to the masculine mind that attempts to escape it, but remember that masculine sexual expression is fundamentally connected to masculine expression of violence, which in turn is a simple description of a natural result found in human biochemistry.

    There is a reason why so much of masculine political necessity requires the subjugation and suffering of women. There is a reason why the abortion discourse struggles so gravely to avoid direct countenance of female humanity.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Lawton, Zoë. "Should Men Be Able to Opt Out of Fatherhood?" Vice. 3 November 2016. Vice.com. 26 May 2019. http://bit.ly/2MbMxGJ
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,647
    Nope.
    You have presented no evidence of having read it.
    Starting with your failure to address the question it contained.
    Nonsense. The father has no such say over the woman's body. He has the same responsibilities toward a born child of his that the mother has, for the same reason.

    If you insist on discussing bizarre and inhuman tradeoffs like that, the obvious one would be to assign the father full parental responsibilities once the mother has fulfilled her contribution of pregnancy and childbirth and nursing - she should be able to hand him the weaned child, and go about her life. That would be at least legalistically fair.
    Always. From before conception, even.
    So?
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,761
    It's up to you. Want to be credible or not?
    We don't have the same standard.
    I haven't claimed that there is any intrinsic value to human life. You have.
    I vote for, advocate and support policies that are consistent with my world-view.
    You advocate for only one kind of life: the one you haven't ruined yet.
    On the planet? UNICEF; Doctors Without Borders, Operation Smile, Plan International, World Vision, International Development Agency, Save the Children - and another couple of lines, if i cared to keep listing.
    In the US, anyone who votes Socialist, or even moderate Democrat.
    Yes, they are. I'm not entirely surprised you don't know about them.
    That's correct. Utopian is your absurdity; mine is to work toward establishing a base line of common decency for everyone.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,647
    The "same general principle"? What "principle" can you possibly be referring to?
    All of the mothers, barring a few psychopaths, are trying.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    What if I pass a law that says you have to give me any organ I need in order to live, coz it's a culture of life.
     

Share This Page