Men's Abortion Rights.

[theprestige]

Because it is unwanted and we allow people to abort unwanted babies.

I guess that's part of what's being debated, though.

A common argument for abortions of convenience is that the thing is not actually a baby yet.

Here's an example of that argument being deployed:

It's called a fetus, not an "unborn child". That's just emotional Christian ********.

The way I see it, you could argue in favor of exterminating unwanted people. But that's a fairly difficult argument to make. It's a lot easier to arbitrarily declare that some things aren't people yet, and therefore the entire argument is moot (and you hate women if you even think about it).

For me it's not even a religious problem, nor even a problem of women's rights. At this point, my entire objection is skeptical: Abortion policy is being argued in favor of an arbitrary line that exists purely to allow abortions of convenience without having to engage in any of the tough moral thinking that should go with it.

There is, morally, no objective difference between abortions of convenience and infanticides of convenience. Just arbitrary semantics and regional customs.

 

[psionl0]

I guess that's part of what's being debated, though.

A common argument for abortions of convenience is that the thing is not actually a baby yet.

Here's an example of that argument being deployed:


The way I see it, you could argue in favor of exterminating unwanted people. But that's a fairly difficult argument to make. It's a lot easier to arbitrarily declare that some things aren't people yet, and therefore the entire argument is moot (and you hate women if you even think about it).

For me it's not even a religious problem, nor even a problem of women's rights. At this point, my entire objection is skeptical: Abortion policy is being argued in favor of an arbitrary line that exists purely to allow abortions of convenience without having to engage in any of the tough moral thinking that should go with it.

There is, morally, no objective difference between abortions of convenience and infanticides of convenience. Just arbitrary semantics and regional customs.

Perhaps it is more a question of the degree of humanness. Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy, the developing child starts off as almost not human at all and gradually becomes more human as the pregnancy progresses until it is almost completely human when birth becomes due.

That would make it more difficult to define a hands off date though. Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps it is more a question of the degree of humanness. Rather than suddenly becoming human (deserving of human rights) at some point during pregnancy, the developing child starts off as almost not human at all and gradually becomes more human as the pregnancy progresses until it is almost completely human when birth becomes due.

Sometimes it seems to me that most people don't become almost completely human until their late teens or so.

That would make it more difficult to define a hands off date though. Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.

I don't know about "probably". I feel like there's probably something not to like about giving the person with the most vested interest in declaring someone "not sufficiently human" the most standing to so declare.

 

[applecorped]

it

 

[Francesca R]

I don't know about "probably". I feel like there's probably something not to like about giving the person with the most vested interest in declaring someone "not sufficiently human" the most standing to so declare.

You seem to be weaving your way around to a destination of telling women what to think and do.

 

[theprestige]

You seem to be weaving your way around to a destination of telling women what to think and do.

Turns out it's a place I never really left.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm applying my principles without regard for gender.

 

[Francesca R]

I think you specifically find “something not to like” about the woman carrying the pregnancy having the most agency to make the decision.


*wince*

 

[theprestige]

I think you specifically find “something not to like” about the woman carrying the pregnancy having the most agency to make the decision.

What is the nature of your concern?

Do you think it's not possible to have a non-sexist position that the people who stand to gain the most from dehumanizing someone should probably not have the final say in that dehumanization?

Do you think it's possible to have such a non-sexist position, but that's not the position I've taken here?

Do you think it's possible to have such a position, and that I've taken such a position here, but my motives are secretly sexist anyway?

Do you think something else that I've failed to account for above?

 

[Francesca R]

Do you think it's not possible to have a non-sexist position that the people who stand to gain the most from dehumanizing someone should probably not have the final say in that dehumanization?

I don't think you can transform views about pregnancy and abortion into a sex-neutral consideration. You are not speaking of people you are speaking of women. (I suppose you could posit that if men got pregnant instead then you would be saying this about men; I guess that's why you consider this not sexist. I disagree)

Also "the people who have the most to gain" [from abortion] is a strangely bizarre comment to insert in my opinion. Or at least also recognise that these people (women) also have the most to lose. (So, they have the most agency).

 

[The Norseman]

There are two people involved. Society does - and should! - mediate disputes between two people.

I have yet to see you even acknowledge this argument.

That's probably because you're begging the question.

I don't think you can transform views about pregnancy and abortion into a sex-neutral consideration. You are not speaking of people you are speaking of women. (I suppose you could posit that if men got pregnant instead then you would be saying this about men; I guess that's why you consider this not sexist. I disagree)

Also "the people who have the most to gain" [from abortion] is a strangely bizarre comment to insert in my opinion. Or at least also recognise that these people (women) also have the most to lose. (So, they have the most agency).

Absolutely women have the most to lose, including their life especially if they carry to term.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think you can transform views about pregnancy and abortion into a sex-neutral consideration. You are not speaking of people you are speaking of women. (I suppose you could posit that if men got pregnant instead then you would be saying this about men; I guess that's why you consider this not sexist. I disagree)

Also "the people who have the most to gain" [from abortion] is a strangely bizarre comment to insert in my opinion. Or at least also recognise that these people (women) also have the most to lose. (So, they have the most agency).

So? White male plantation owners in the Antebellum South had the most to gain, and the most to lose, on the question of dehumanizing their labor force. I think it would be perverse to the point of obscenity to grant them the predominant agency over the fate of African visitors to their fair country.

Is that a misandrist view, because we're necessarily talking about men in that context? Or is it just racist, if we acknowledge that there were occasionally white female plantation owners?

 

[Southwind17]

Not accepting what? That my arbitrary line is different to yours?

No - that yours is untenable, as I said.

 

[Southwind17]

That's odd because I would have thought that what Darat suggests is precisely "up to a certain stage of development" which according to you should render it tenable and justifiable.

No it's fully developed - that's why it's ready to be born.

 

[Southwind17]

And it's a line that is a lot more objective and easy to determine than the ones we set now.

How convenient!

The "the line" Dara set is right at the point the baby is no longer part of the mothers body which is a key point.

You're not wrong there!

 

[theprestige]

That's probably because you're begging the question.

Sure.

On the other hand, PW is also begging the question that there's not two people involved. Either that, or he's preparing an argument that even though there's two people involved, society should give one of them absolute authority over the life and death of the other.

The entire question hinges not on a matter of human rights, but on an entirely arbitrary rule about what it means to be human. So I'm not going to let PW steal a base and try to win the argument by simply begging the actual question. Or if he gets to steal a base, then so do I.

 

[Southwind17]

Probably the person most suited to deciding whether the unborn child is not sufficiently human and can still be killed would be the pregnant woman herself.

Perhaps we could take that argument beyond birth then - you know, in case the mother decides motherhood is simply not for her, or if the baby's the 'wrong' sex, or just plain ugly?!?

 

[psionl0]

Perhaps we could take that argument beyond birth then - you know, in case the mother decides motherhood is simply not for her, or if the baby's the 'wrong' sex, or just plain ugly?!?

Only if you want to argue that the child is not completely human after birth. (Yes, I know, what about the day before birth? Yadda yadda).

 

[Southwind17]

Only if you want to argue that the child is not completely human after birth. (Yes, I know, what about the day before birth? Yadda yadda).

OK I can accept why birth can be considered by some as an appropriate time to deem an entity a human being. I still struggle to see the significance of the location of the baby (in or out) and detachment from the mother in the context of whether it should be allowed to continue to live.

 

[psionl0]

OK I can accept why birth can be considered by some as an appropriate time to deem an entity a human being. I still struggle to see the significance of the location of the baby (in or out) and detachment from the mother in the context of whether it should be allowed to continue to live.

That's because you ignored the first part of the post that you quoted which argued that there is no magical point where a child (born or not) suddenly becomes human.

 

[Southwind17]

That's because you ignored the first part of the post that you quoted which argued that there is no magical point where a child (born or not) suddenly becomes human.

No I didn't, and you're wrong in any event.

Darat stated that for him/her everything changes when the baby is born. I'm challenging the relevance of that event, although I accept that when a baby is born it can be argued that then, and only then, does it constitute a human being (as distinct from being human).