Should men have a say in abortion ?

First you have to establish that your signatory criteria for valuing life isn't the cheaply packaged political horse crap that it appears to be.

I don't have to establish anything.
It's your political horsrecrap that's making repressive laws against women.
Come to think of it, horses make quite neat fertilizer; your politics are less pleasant. Lets call it hyppocrap.
It's your political hyppocrap that forbids sex education in public schools.
It's also your political hyppocrap that reduces funding to perinatal care and children's health.
It's your political hyppocrap that underfunds and understaffs family services.
It's your political hyppocrap that throws children in cages.
It's your political hyppocrap that bombs civilians in distant countries.
It's your political hyppocrap that executes people, often innocent people.
It's your political hyppocrap that claims to revere human life that hasn't happened yet, while treating humans who are already alive like dirt.
 
The question should be what potential those living molecules promise.
They promise nothing. They know nothing. Most of them pass harmlessly through the body, unnoticed and unmourned.
Potential can mean anything - beneficial or destructive; good or evil; happy and productive or miserable and costly.
Potential has no value.
 
I believe the Pro-Life movement needs a new approach, reaching out to a broader audience than what can be found in front of abortion clinics.
That's true on both sides. Perhaps there is a better way to promote the value of life than by assaulting women and showing pictures of dismembered fetuses.
 
There are a whole range of individuals (and even living entities other than human) who cannot express themselves, but that in no way paves a green light for social Darwinism and what not that you are rapidly sliding down the slope of.
And you are rapidly sliding down the slope toward fascism by forcing women to have babies.
 
The freedom to control your own body.
At the expense of another? Honestly, Bob, I'm not certain how I feel about anti-abortion laws. What I do know is that I can't kill another person for the benefit of personal convenience. I suppose it would be easier if I could reduce them into something less than human, which is where these discussions usually go.
 
That's true on both sides. Perhaps there is a better way to promote the value of life than by assaulting women and showing pictures of dismembered fetuses.
I don't know that truth can be considered an assault, but I do believe people can be reached in a less graphic and a more sympathetic manner. I would like to try myself.
 
From the standpoint of risk, an early abortion carries 1/10 the risk to the health of mother than a continued pregnancy, so the risk argument doesn’t fly.

It wasn't a comparative question, Capracus. Changing the subject doesn't work; see below in re "unequal advantage", for a more relevant consideration of this risk she undertakes. Meanwhile, his liability risk is his liability risk.

From the standpoint of having an equal opportunity in regards to a commitment to parenthood ...

From the standpoint of having an equal opportunity in regards to a commitment to parenthood, as I said↑ when I walked into the discussion, every man should have the same right to terminate a pregnancy he is carrying as a woman.

... the mother has an unequal advantage in having the right to make that decision for both parents by continuing or stopping the pregnancy.

Ceteris paribus is not in effect; this is actually observable. "Unequal advantage" is terminology subordinate to your particular framework. Consider a process that takes about ten months, damages a body while as it progresses, requires difficult and dangerous labor or else surgery to complete, and then a period of months to years in order that one might recover physically as much as possible, although never completely, and is known to have the effect of drastically and even fundamentally altering the way a particular psyche functions in relation to the reality it perceives. In the decision to carry forward with a physically damaging, mind-altering process or not, the fact of its occurrence in and upon her body is only an "unequal advantage" according to an utterly egocentric framework in which another requires authority over her in order to advance his demanded right to satisfaction. Which, in turn, isn't exactly new as masculine, egocentric frameworks go.

While the father has no legal right to force a mother to continue or stop a pregnancy, at least some measure of fairness could be granted the father by allowing him to opt out of parental responsibility when a mother wishes to continue a pregnancy over his objection.

The question of "fairness" in exchange for authority over another person's body isn't even a proper joke.

• The decision to carry forward with a physically damaging, mind-altering process or not goes to the person whose body it will affect.

• To reiterate↑: That some man doesn't want to account for his offspring isn't a rational justification for either masculine incompetence or some stupid and selfish privilege thereunto.

• Follow the bouncy balls:

→ The fact of unintended pregnancy means the male gamete should not have been present.

→ Sperm cells, as such, are not in this case a contribution to a process, but waste irresponsibly left behind.

Littering does not automatically grant you a proprietary share in anything except legal responsibility for inadequately disposing of your trash.​

While the father has no legal right to force a mother to continue or stop a pregnancy, at there is no measure of "fairness" to be granted the father by allowing him to opt out of parental responsibility when a mother wishes to continue a pregnancy over his objection, because there is nothing to exchange. You demand a measure of "fairness" for what amounts to putting precisely nothing on the scale: Littering does not automatically grant you a proprietary share over a woman. Full stop.

Again, it's time for men to stop treating their own sexual inadequacy or fears thereof as something to blame on everybody else.

And no, I'm not really up to giving the lecture on, "Better and Safer Sustainable Masculine Sexual Gratification", right now. The basic summary, though, is to be a better partner to women or else be the lover unto yourself you always wanted from others. In other words, it's a laborious hot mess as lectures go, and a whole lot of what goes into it a man ought to be able to figure out for himself, anyway.

• • •​

Wicked Super Happy Bonus Fun Time: Here's the challenge, and anyone can play.

1) Find a particular connection between Shel Silverstein and the German heavy metal band Helloween.

2) Observe a question of scandal according not to what, but why; make what you will of the circumstances describing why.

3) Once you answer the question of scandal by rejecting scandalization, attend a more general implication of what the particular connection describes.

4) Now I can skip the the Gratification lecture altogether.​
 
At the expense of another?
A fetus is not an "other".
Honestly, Bob, I'm not certain how I feel about anti-abortion laws.
To be clear, I'm not "in favour" of abortion. I am in favour of minding my own business by not forcing a woman to do something.
What I do know is that I can't kill another person for the benefit of personal convenience.
And you don't even have to make that choice, unless you're a pregnant woman. I can see why she might want to ask somebody for advice but I can't see why you would want to force your advice on her.
 
A fetus is not an "other".
We disagree on that definition.

To be clear, I'm not "in favour" of abortion. I am in favour of minding my own business by not forcing a woman to do something.
Are you willing to fund abortions or give support to those who provide abortions? So don't participate in any efforts that are contrary to your convictions. I fault you not for that.

And you don't even have to make that choice, unless you're a pregnant woman. I can see why she might want to ask somebody for advice but I can't see why you would want to force your advice on her.

The public square is open to all, Bob. If I believe abortion is wrong, shouldn't I say so?
 
I don't know that truth can be considered an assault
It's not - but assault is indeed assault. For example, pro-life activist Robert Dear shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, injuring and killing several people there. That's assault.
 
It's not - but assault is indeed assault. For example, pro-life activist Robert Dear shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, injuring and killing several people there. That's assault.
I agree with you. That is assault, and I wouldn't make excuses for such. Why do you think such things happen?
 
We disagree on that definition.
The problem is that there is no hard and fast definition. When does a fetus become an "other" life? Not before conception. Certainly after birth. But at what point in time can you "define" it as separate from its host?
Are you willing to fund abortions or give support to those who provide abortions?
If they're funded by taxpayer money, it isn't a matter of choice. I don't want my tax money going to kill little brown people on the other side of the world either but most "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with that.
The public square is open to all, Bob. If I believe abortion is wrong, shouldn't I say so?
It's one thing to say it and another thing to push your politicians to enforce it. You can hate Jews all you want and you can say so in public - but when you authorize your politicians to build extermination camps, you've gone too far.
 
I agree with you. That is assault, and I wouldn't make excuses for such. Why do you think such things happen?
Because people react based on emotion rather than reason. And unscrupulous leaders know that - and pander to that.
 
Are you willing to fund abortions or give support to those who provide abortions?
If that is part of a public healthcare program, then yes. I mean, I fund medical procedures for rapists and murderers in prison (and so do you) - a woman who wants birth control or an abortion is far more deserving of our support than a murderer.
 
The problem is that there is no hard and fast definition. When does a fetus become an "other" life? Not before conception. Certainly after birth. But at what point in time can you "define" it as separate from its host?
Why must a living being be separate from its mother to be considered a living being?

If they're funded by taxpayer money, it isn't a matter of choice.
The Pro-Lifers believe it should be a choice.

I don't want my tax money going to kill little brown people on the other side of the world either but most "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with that.
So the killing of little brown people on the other side of the world can be blamed on Pro-Lifers?

It's one thing to say it and another thing to push your politicians to enforce it. You can hate Jews all you want and you can say so in public - but when you authorize your politicians to build extermination camps, you've gone too far.

What about the authorization of abortion clinics? I believe you would be among the many to protest extermination camps.
 
If that is part of a public healthcare program, then yes. I mean, I fund medical procedures for rapists and murderers in prison (and so do you) - a woman who wants birth control or an abortion is far more deserving of our support than a murderer.
Does that funding for rapist and murderers include taking life on their behalf?
 
Back
Top