Should men have a say in abortion ?

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

  1. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    I'm not feeling cornered.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Looked clear and easy to understand, or so I would hope for your sake. No deception intended.

    A sperm or egg alone has no potential, whereas a fetus does. Yes, yes, the child is dependent on the mother.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    Any liability and risk associated with parenthood for either party is only possible with a continued pregnancy. Since the initiation of pregnancy is a collaborative effort, each party should have some rights regarding their participation in its outcome. If the woman has the right and ability to opt in or out of the process as the law allows, then the father should at least have a portion of that right with the ability to opt out if the woman insists on assuming the risks and liabilities of pregnancy and parenthood over his objection.
    Except that this proposition is not attempting to force a pregnant entity to terminate, but to assume sole responsibility for the outcome they solely desire.
    There is no need to consider a woman’s risk and trauma associated with her pregnancy when the objective of the father is to stop the process before these conditions arise. If a woman wishes to put herself through such potential agony, let her assume the risk and responsibility for her continued engagement.
    Again, this proposition is not about assuming control over the body of another, but allowing the other potential parent to also have the right to opt out of the process.
    Fine, if they want to continue with this masochistic process over the objection of the other potential parent, then they are free to do so on their own.
    It’s only an offspring when the woman decides not to kill it. Is the woman selfish when she decides to abrogate parental duty by committing feticide?
    Nothing on the scale? She has a choice to not spend the rest of her life as a parent at the point in question regardless of his actions, and he has no similar choice. What opportunity does he have to balance that scale? At this point the objecting father should have the same rights as an anonymous sperm donor, and the mother assumes the role and responsibilities of a sperm bank client.
    This proposition is dealing with the rights of each potential parent to opt out of parenthood at a time when a developing embryo or fetus is at a stage that precedes viability. So no, we’re not talking about abandoning either party’s responsibility for a born child.
    When a mother decides to kill a fetus prior to viability, she is exercising her right to opt out of parenthood. The only way for the father to opt out of parenthood at this point would be to either convince the mother to terminate or to be legally relieved of his future parental obligation. In any case, a child only comes into question when the mother decides to continue a pregnancy into viability, so if the objections aren’t made prior to this point, then both parents are on the hook.
    Yet for his simple donation of sperm, and her insistence to assume the risks of pregnancy and motherhood, he is forced to deal physically and emotionally with the various aspects of parenthood. If she has a choice to opt out with minimal cost, so should he.
    First explain why and how you propose protecting the life of a developing fetus at any stage, even prior to its conception? Apparently you believe that all abortion must be banned since it threatens the life of any developing fetus.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,761
    I said nothing about benevolence. You keep responding to your own twisted rhetoric, wandering off into the realm of lawyers, anarchy and worms, rather answer my one simple question.
    My standard of common decency is to support policies that do 1. not execute people, especially innocent ones 2. not drop bombs on civilian populations of other countries 3.do provide a basic standard of health care and education to all of one's own citizens and 4. insure a basic standard of care for all the children that already exist
    - instead of punishing women if they refuse to reproduce.
    You consistently find that impossible and ridiculous, even when it's reduced to the bare minimum contribution of supporting a political party.

    You still haven't answered why it's so ridiculous for those who claim to value life to value the lives of living people .
    No. It's unforgivable.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,202
    Since the topic is, "Should men have a say in abortion ?" I'd say the least broken alternative is the one with the least meddling by outsiders.
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    In the case of abortion, it doesn't.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,202
    Nobody is suggesting that a fetus doesn't exist. A brick exists but it is not a house. Breaking a brick is not burglary.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,835
    I agree.

    Murderers and rapists in prison are 100% dependent on us. It's a relationship that is at the core of civilized society. Sometimes we put them to death - because not all such relationships are worth keeping.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,835
    Agreed.

    I am often amused by the anti-abortion crowd, because they are also generally the small-government types. "Why should I let some Washington bureaucrat tell me what I can and can't do? I want FREEDOM! I demand RIGHTS! I want to make my OWN decisions! Well, except for women. Washington bureaucrats should decide for them if they can have an abortion."
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,471
    But pregnancy itself is a risk of sexual contact. Don't blame a woman for a man's failure.

    But a man's failure is his own. Remember, this is an unintended pregnancy. After accounting for available methods of birth control, and the couple's decision made, a man must still account for his gametes.

    He had his say when he left his stuff laying around where it shouldn't be.

    Your proposition requires a spectre of compelled termination. Forced abortion is invoked according to the suggestion that it is unfair for a man to suffer the consequences of not aborting: If he cannot have the result of the abortion she does not wish to have, as you've been arguing.

    We'll come back to this in a moment.

    Now you're arguing guardianship of women, and if you resent that notion

    Can you do us a favor, and just once, skip out on the supremacism? Seriously, if it was mere stupidity, then at some point you should learn.

    "There is no need", you say, "to consider a woman's risk and trauma associated with her pregnancy when the objective of the father is to stop the process before these conditions arise." In the case you are presenting, however, he isn't trying to help her with anything; he is, instead, demanding a stake in her medical decisions as a lever by which he might help himself. That is to say, he's not trying to help; he's trying to control her for his own purposes.

    This juvenile-sounding petulance pretty much sums up the manchild chauvinism that has permeated this corner of political discourse as long as I have encountered it. To the other, so is that thing you said to Iceaura:

    Really? That's it? You brought straw to your own sausage party?

    Or, as we return to what you were shoveling up for me:

    There is, of course, a problem with calling your performance juvenile, and that's piling onto young people unnecessarily. We might remind that you are already familiar with particular relevant views I argue; that is to say, you already know the asserted bright line, or, at least, ought to.

    Now, here you are, injecting particular rightist political language, and, really, nobody's surprised, given your tendency toward supremacist rhetoric. Additionally, the wavering back and forth doesn't work, and only reiterates the egocentrism at the heart of your pitch. If you want to call it "feticide", remember, then it applies throughout; you want him to be able to duck out if she doesn't commit "feticide" on his say-so.

    Pick a principle and stick with it.

    Furthermore, there really isn't any need to project like that when you already know the answer; the straw fallacy was entirely extraneous, and only reiterates this isn't about some man's effort to save a woman from herself, but, rather, asserting authority over a woman.

    The answer to your two sentences are a word apiece: Fallacy. Irrelevant.

    I already told you: Ceteris paribus is not in effect.

    And we should take the moment to note explicitly: Termination is not without its risks to a woman. If "there is no need to consider a woman's risk and trauma associated with her pregnancy when the objective of the father is to stop the process before these conditions arise", we must consider the risks of termination. Your failure to do so is not insignificant; similarly, your question of selfishness overlooks the perils and tolls of pregnancy.

    This clumsy infidelity to your own arguments suggests what you present is more of an emotionally-driven pretense by which pretty much whatever comes to mind will do.

    So we come back 'round, as I said, to that one point:

    Correct. You argued "this proposition is not attempting to force a pregnant entity to terminate", which is technically true; compelled termination, however, is the fallacy against which your masculine absolution is contrasted, and upon which it depends. It is make-believe, and as such brings no weight to the scale.

    I already told you: A man makes his decisions first when he engages sexual intercourse, and then when his seminal fluid touches her body; from there, every last drop of risk he contributes is his risk to bear. It is possible you missed the point, as your response was to change the subject to a different form of risk, which, as you would go on to explain, a man could save a woman from.

    Thus, his decision already made—

    —the answer is that he doesn't really get a mulligan on this one.

    I mean, there is a line about when men can be pregnant, but we really ought not need it.

    Wrong. The sperm bank donor intends to contribute to reproduction under particular circumstances. The hapless father you're describing isn't actually trying to reproduce, but, rather, seeks to escape reproduction. That you can't tell the difference is significant of something relevant, to be certain, but we can probably set that analysis aside as a distraction, for now. Thus, to reiterate: Sperm cells, as such, are not in this case a contribution to a process, but waste irresponsibly left behind.

    In truth, I would not expect anybody really wants to fight this down to the last sperm cell, but if that's what it takes, then there will be occasions on which an unintended pregnancy means a man somehow violated the terms of consent to sexual intercourse by failing to contain his gamete. And, hey, you know how we keep civil rights questions out of fucking? By not forcing them into the discussion.

    Contraceptive drugs and devices can fail. And just as general decency requires a man be basically capable of containing his vigor and verve in the act of copulation, so ought he attend his spunk.

    Thus, again: Littering does not automatically grant a man a proprietary share in anything except his own legal responsibility for inadequately disposing of his trash.
     
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    You also see that their relationship of dependence has zero bearing on their fate. It is never the case that the powers that be decide to imprison or exterminate someone merely because they exist in a state of dependence.
     
  14. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Do you feel the same about other issues in society? Like the issues around the deployment of the military, resource allocation and the economy, criminal justice and the legal system and so forth?
    If you want to play "intimate bearing" as the basis for advocacy, it seems that a vast majority of people are not permitted to voice input on practically anything within the jurisdiction of their society.

    But its all smoke and mirrors anyway. Not even you, as evidenced by your participation in this thread, are willing to obey this sage advice of yours.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    A strange analogy to bring up ..... along the same lines, nor is every medical proceedure upon the child in the womb an abortion. Nevertheless, all parties involved, whether for or against, are very clear at what point life begins. If they weren't clear on this essential fact, they wouldn't have the impetus to prevent or encourage it happening.
    At the very least, even a burglar can understand the role breaking bricks plays in achieving their goal.
     
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Others beg to differ .... which of course is the crux of the problem and you know it ..... even if you blithely spout these rhetorical one liners as if they mean anything or progress the discussion in any way.
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Yes you did.
    You offered one "to do" list of what your opponents have to achieve in order to be deemed credible (rolling out benevolent goods and services on a scale on par with changing the orbit of the planet).
    And you offered a generic vague goal on what your party has to achieve in order to meet the same criteria.
    Its called a double standard.

    The funny thing here is the only dishonesty displayed is yours. You employ dishonest discussion techniques, and when this is pointed out to you, using your own words, you demand to know why I support dishonesty. Truly bizarre. Its like a politician on tv, desperately staying on message even though everyone knows they ate pushing shit up hill.

    So how do you define " children who already exist"?

    Interesting.
    So motherhood is a punishment?
    Why do you think that?
    At what stage does it become "punishment"?
    At what stage does it cease to be "punishment"?

    Lol
    Thats quite a funny "bare minimum" in a discussion about ethics

    This question doesn't make sense. Shouldn't I be the one asking you this?

    So is jumping from one loaded question to the other when the slope gradient before the cart of dung you are pushing proves too troublesome.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,647
    The man acquires responsibilities and obligations, and the rights contingently associated with them. Abandoning them is not among those rights.
    Yep. Suck it up, snowflake. There's no such thing as a free fuck, and the government can't give you one.
    Why "first"? You haven't even addressed the relevance of the issue, when asked directly.
    Not that it's a difficult question to answer off the cuff - by suitable laws and regulations that address common threats, such as air and water and noise pollution by industry for profit, say. Among many other approaches.
    Which already exist, btw - something the Republican corporate elite might pause to consider when throwing rancid bones like abortion banning and "life" at conception to the fundies whose votes they need. Even involuntary manslaughter often comes with jail time - the kinds of calculated decisions they've been making carry some startlingly heavy penalties, and don't look good in front of juries if they involve children's lives.
    It seems they still haven't caught on to the shift in power they enabled, by mortgaging their Party to the megachurch basements and windowless vans of the heirs of the Confederacy and the Klan. (Magachurch? Had a good typo there).

    Because "once you have paid them the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane". Kipling - more than a century ago.
    You mean "months after", not "when". Also, "abortion", not "feticide".
    Irrelevant regardless. Her obvious right to control the inside of her own body, to protect herself against assault and serious - potentially lethal - injury, does not depend on her motives for exercising it.
    Done and done. Both parents have the right to obtain abortions for themselves, under the equal protection mandates of the US Constitution.
    - - - -
    In all circumstances other than abortion and its direct contingencies, all parties involved have agreed - for centuries - that a living human embryo at four months can be flushed down a toilet or incinerated as medical waste for the convenience of medical personnel, janitors, and other bystanders.

    So we can start there, in listing our clear agreements.
    The prolife crowd is "differing" by way of lies, slanders, and bad faith - to the point of blood libel. That is indeed a "crux" of the problem.

    Starting, btw, with the question of whether men should have a say in abortion. Clearly they should, and do, and always have, and always will. But that does not satisfy the prolife crowd. They have altered and misrepresented the question - used it to conceal and falsely justify their agenda: they present it as equivalent to the question of whether the men in the police and the men in the government should have the power to forbid abortion under penalty of law, to prevent - by force, at gunpoint - poor women and girls from obtaining abortions.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,232
    how do you solve a problem like maria ?

    the american culture machine that is designed to not only eat cash as a sacrifice(much like bribery) but also demand cash as a process of symbology of worth, is purely a cultural issue.

    there are plenty of groups that have been created and sustained and grown without needing some type of rich prostitution of morality to financially bow down to the mighty dollar as a symbol of patriarchal man-baby cultist adherence.

    the american political system defines a cultural standard of moral equity to conceptual cultural worth.

    what do you do if your in the UK ?
    you start a petition and ask for volunteers
    you dont need any money
    you just get volunteers and if the idea is liked by the majority, it will gain enough momentum so you can spend a taxi fair to deliver the petition to parliament and then it will be put to the house and voted into law.
    if it is not, the people will revolt.
    people will strike, protest and block major intersection. shut down business and shopping districts and perform sit in on Members of parliament(law makers to use the americanism bastardization of democratic representative) personal homes.

    this is true democracy and it happens in places with civilized people who dont want to carry machine guns to the corner shop to buy a non fat double skim soya diet coke.

    this bullshit parade about having to raise cash to create a society for thinking how to wipe your own ass is complete fascist propaganda.
    much like the brown shirt brigade brain washing.
    you cant stop the trains taking the Jews to the extermination camps because the train drivers are not allowed to press the stop button without someone paying the bill for stopping the train.

    complete horse shit !
    i cant believe you would promote(or truly believe?) such propaganda.

    this is supposed to be a science forum.
     
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,232
    ...
    abortionista's playing god with womens ovaries...
    turning it into a proxy war of religion to gain control of the government.

    then trying as hard as possible to dehumanize the women while then giving secular modern technological human rights to the fetus while denying the womens rights...

    uummm....
    why do men want to play god over womens bodys ?
     
  21. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    It's not clear what distinguishes "modern technological human rights" from "human rights".
     
  22. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    Have you got an actual example of an organization/group at the fore of advocating/catalyzing social change that stands aloof from the before mentioned standard of finance etc?
    Or for that matter, an organization as such who thought winning support for their ideas on a political front would be taking things too far?
    I get it that you have issues about the power structure of society (who doesn't ?) .... but if you want to usurp it, it seems there is no alternative but to play by the same rules as everyone else in the game (or just get relegated as an issue of no consequence).
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,232
    modern medical science that people pay for to save the life of a baby utero
    all those scanner machines and operations...
    etc etc...
    ...wont do it because they wont pay the money... ? "modern technological human rights"

    instead republicans would prefer to pay for trump to have gold toilet seats on his private gold club

    thats a human right ?

    you do realize i know your playing the financial game here.

    are you proposing that only rich pregnant women get free ultrasounds and free doctors visits ?
     

Share This Page