Men's Abortion Rights.

theprestige said:
Sure. We have a whole social safety net, which I support and pay into, for just this contingency.

The entire scenario is contrived to force a gotcha, not to promote discussion. Maybe that's the real reason Puppycow has so much trouble getting good faith engagement, with this strategy.
Click to expand...

My problem is that I'm also in favour of incarcerating child murderers, so I've had to accommodate a couple of them in my house.

Plus my support of the reintroduction of wolves into National Parks means there's a couple of them living in the back bedroom.

Again also strongly in favour of research facilities studying deadly nerve agents, transmissible diseases and nuclear weapons, so there's a few jars of them scattered round the front room. It was going to be the toilet but that's full of transwomen at the moment.

The kid's welcome to stay , at least until social services does its checks.
 
To be fair, I'd be entirely in favor of storing nuclear waste literally in my backyard. Assuming it was in the kind of responsible storage facility the experts generally propose, and I was getting paid a reasonable fee from the government for the use of my property for that purpose.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you are confused about what “discrimination” actually means. If you are 14, you are not allowed to vote or buy alcohol. If you are 24, you are allowed to do both. That is age discrimination.
Click to expand...

Nope. You wrote:
Ziggurat said:
Not really. Most dramatically, the distinction between adults and minors is age discrimination. It's only in certain contexts and within certain age ranges that age discrimination is considered bad.
Click to expand...

The distinction between adults and minors is exactly that - a distinction. It can be construed in many contexts, including, but not limited to, discrimination. Maybe you're confused about what 'distinction' actually means, but to be fair I think it comes down to poor wording. ;)
 
theprestige said:
I had inferred from the scenario that she did not want it because she couldn't afford it. Thank you for clarifying.

This clarifies a few things, actually. Since we know she can afford it, the question comes down to who should be responsible for it. And the answer to that is obvious: She should be responsible for it.
Click to expand...
Well, I never said she could afford it. You seem to think it's an either/or thing, but it could be both. She doesn't want it and she can't afford it.

This is especially true if you're going to argue that fathers shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be responsible for children they didn't want but the mother chose not to abort.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue that. I think men should be able to opt out if they aren't involved in the decision. In that sense, I'm "pro-choice" for men too. I think the final decision of whether to have an abortion or not should be the woman's, but that men should be able to opt out of parental responsibilities if they disagree with her decision. (If she keeps her pregnancy a secret or never informs or consults him, for example; or if she does and he says that he wants no part of it.)

Seems to me that if you're going to make exceptions for rape in public policy, then a formal allegation of rape must be lodged and upheld, in order for the exception to apply.
Click to expand...

But by the time the case goes through the criminal justice system and the defendant is convicted, the short window for an abortion (earlier is better in my opinion, if you're going to do it) may already be over. Trials can drag on for years.
 
Southwind17 said:
Nope. You wrote:


The distinction between adults and minors is exactly that - a distinction. It can be construed in many contexts, including, but not limited to, discrimination. Maybe you're confused about what 'distinction' actually means, but to be fair I think it comes down to poor wording. ;)
Click to expand...

Um... "discrimination" and "distinction" are synonyms.
 
Southwind17 said:
They might be in whatever language you go by, but certainly aren't in the Queen's English! You might care to carefully read their definitions in addition to that for 'synonym'. :)
Click to expand...

You're like the Monty Python black knight. You just lost, but you're pretending otherwise.
 
Southwind17 said:
Except that you failed to account for contextdict my dear fellow. ;)
Click to expand...

Seriously? The context is that we discriminate on the basis of age all the time. You haven't actually claimed otherwise. You haven't actually claimed that not allowing people of certain ages to do things that people of other ages can do specifically because of their ages isn't discrimination. Because of course it is.
 
Ziggurat said:
Seriously? The context is that we discriminate on the basis of age all the time. You haven't actually claimed otherwise. You haven't actually claimed that not allowing people of certain ages to do things that people of other ages can do specifically because of their ages isn't discrimination. Because of course it is.
Click to expand...

Now you're losing the plot! You used the words 'distinction' and 'discrimination' in the same sentence (that, alone, should indicate to you that they're not synonymous - in context!). I questioned your understanding of the meanings of the two words, which Pharsis neatly clarified, in context.

You then pulled me up on my paraphrasing of Pharsis, omitting to appreciate what I claimed in context. I then pointed that out to you, and now you're homing in on a very narrow context for the use of the word 'discrimination', rather than the contexts in which use of the words 'distinction' and 'discrimination' renders them not necessarily synonymous.

Do you see the distinction, or are you planning on continuing to discriminate against my reasoning?

Sadly, you diverted attention to pure grammar, rather than seeking to clarify my, arguably, misinterpretation of your ambiguously-worded statement.

Now who sounds like the Black Knight?!? :D
 
Southwind17 said:
Now you're losing the plot! You used the words 'distinction' and 'discrimination' in the same sentence (that, alone, should indicate to you that they're not synonymous - in context!). I questioned your understanding of the meanings of the two words, which Pharsis neatly clarified, in context.

You then pulled me up on my paraphrasing of Pharsis, omitting to appreciate what I claimed in context. I then pointed that out to you, and now you're homing in on a very narrow context for the use of the word 'discrimination', rather than the contexts in which use of the words 'distinction' and 'discrimination' renders them not necessarily synonymous.

Do you see the distinction, or are you planning on continuing to discriminate against my reasoning?

Sadly, you diverted attention to pure grammar, rather than seeking to clarify my, arguably, misinterpretation of your ambiguously-worded statement.

Now who sounds like the Black Knight?!? :D
Click to expand...

you
 
Belz... said:
Not that I'm against abortion, but: if the zygote isn't human life, what is it?
Click to expand...
A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.

Then that cell divides and becomes 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 cells and so forth. At what point in that trajectory does it become a person?

Nobody can reliably define that.

Most jurisdictions that allow abortions use viability as a threshold. To me, that seems a best compromise (or least worst) for setting a term limit in a legal sense. Of course, viability is becoming earlier and earlier as medical technology advances.

The bottom line here is that there is no easy way around the issue of defining "personhood". Legally it is fraught with difficulty. Add to that the problem that the laws lag almost a generation behind the current facts on the ground just compounds the matter at hand.

Women (and their babies) have died because of this ineffectual legal futtering around.

As a man, and a father, I have absolutely no right to dictate anything to any woman. Period.
 
abaddon said:
A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily that clear cut:

In religion, ensoulment is the moment at which a human being gains a soul. Some religions say that a soul is newly created within a developing child and others, especially in religions that believe in reincarnation, that the soul is pre-existing and added at a particular stage of development.

In the time of Aristotle, it was widely believed that the human soul entered the forming body at 40 days (male embryos) or 90 days (female embryos), and quickening was an indication of the presence of a soul. Other religious views are that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception; or when the child takes the first breath after being born;[1][2] at the formation of the nervous system and brain; at the first brain activity (e.g., heartbeat); or when the fetus is able to survive independently of the uterus (viability).[3]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

In practice it should be a completely moot point since the soul cannot be shown to exist, empirically or otherwise. Basing legislation on its presumed existence, derived only from religious beliefs, would be unacceptable in any reasonable country.
 
abaddon said:
A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.
Click to expand...
Given that the DNA of a zygote is different to that of all the other cells in your body, your argument is specious.

If a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy then I guess that it is usually best to allow her to do so but don't provide her with silly rationalizations for it.
 
abaddon said:
Yup.
Click to expand...
The judges in these cases are clearly law breakers. By law, a minor child is considered incapable of giving consent to a sex act. But because these victims were boys, the sexist judges said "**** the law" and ruled that they gave consent and were therefore liable.
 
abaddon said:
A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
Given that the DNA of a zygote is different to that of all the other cells in your body, your argument is specious.

If a woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy then I guess that it is usually best to allow her to do so but don't provide her with silly rationalizations for it.
Click to expand...


Huh! :confused:

I think you have to explain the speciousness in abaddon's statement psion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom