Should men have a say in abortion ?

[Bowser]

The inability to write grammatical English when cornered in an argument is a field mark of the fundie Christian on these forums.

I'm not feeling cornered.

As one learns in basic composition classes, such language often marks dishonesty and bad faith - an attempt to insinuate something one is unwilling to state clearly.

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

They have no potential by there own as does the later.

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

 

[Capracus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

No, you weren't.
You were talking about a father abandoning his parental responsibilities for a born child.

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.

His responsibilities for a born child are no greater than the mothers, and there is no fairness in absolving him of them.

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.

That's hardly "fair" to the woman. She has incurred great cost and risk, he has done nothing comparable.

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.

The question was: "So?"

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.

 

[Jeeves]

Only if we insist that your ridiculous, hypocritical babble is the standard for being benevolent (a standard you dramatically redact down to saner proportions when you are also forced into the picture).

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 .

Pardon me?

No. It's unforgivable.

 

[sideshowbob]

So then I guess it becomes a question of who offers the less broken alternative.

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.

 

[sideshowbob]

So if that freedom comes at the expense of disposing of the body of another...

In the case of abortion, it doesn't.

 

[sideshowbob]

synonyms:inception, genesis, origination, creation, formation, formulation, invention;

Usually we understand something to exist after it begins. It's not a difficult concept.

Nobody is suggesting that a fetus doesn't exist. A brick exists but it is not a house. Breaking a brick is not burglary.

 

[billvon]

Which is, as mentioned, a type of relationship at the core of civilized society.

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.

 

[billvon]

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.

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."

 

[Tiassa]

Any liability and risk associated with parenthood for either party is only possible with a continued pregnancy.

But pregnancy itself is a risk of sexual contact. Don't blame a woman for a man's failure.

Since the initiation of pregnancy is a collaborative effort, each party should have some rights regarding their participation in its outcome.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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

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?

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:

Nothing on the scale?

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.

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.

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—

What opportunity does he have to balance that scale?

—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.

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.

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.

 

[Musika]

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.

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.

 

[Musika]

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.

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.

 

[Musika]

Nobody is suggesting that a fetus doesn't exist. A brick exists but it is not a house. Breaking a brick is not burglary.

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.

 

[Musika]

In the case of abortion, it doesn't.

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.

 

[Musika]

I said nothing about benevolence.

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.

You keep responding to your own twisted rhetoric, wandering off into the realm of lawyers, anarchy and worms, rather answer my one simple question.

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.

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

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

- instead of punishing women if they refuse to reproduce.

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"?

You consistently find that impossible and ridiculous, even when it's reduced to the bare minimum contribution of supporting a political party.

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

You still haven't answered why it's so ridiculous for those who claim to value life to value the lives of living people .

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

No. It's unforgivable.

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.

 

[iceaura]

. Since the initiation of pregnancy is a collaborative effort, each party should have some rights regarding their participation in its outcome.

The man acquires responsibilities and obligations, and the rights contingently associated with them. Abandoning them is not among those rights.

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.

Yep. Suck it up, snowflake. There's no such thing as a free fuck, and the government can't give you one.

First explain why and how you propose protecting the life of a developing fetus at any stage, even prior to its conception?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Done and done. Both parents have the right to obtain abortions for themselves, under the equal protection mandates of the US Constitution.
- - - -

Nevertheless, all parties involved, whether for or against, are very clear at what point life begins.

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.

Others beg to differ .... which of course is the crux of the problem and you know it

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

there is no way to sustain organization without funds, media and so forth.

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

So your main gripe is that your opponents need to adopt a more ethical organisational model?

your opponents

...
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 ?

 

[Musika]

...
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 ?

It's not clear what distinguishes "modern technological human rights" from "human rights".

 

[Musika]

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.

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).

 

[RainbowSingularity]

It's not clear what distinguishes "modern technological human rights" from "human rights".

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 ?