Men's Abortion Rights.

[PhantomWolf]

You may argue that but in actual practice people do take this right upon themselves.

People also took in upon themselves to take other humans into slavery too. Your argument seems to be they have the right because they took the right, this is rather circular.

I'm not saying it's "right", rather I'm saying they claim that right for themselves. All societies do to one extent or another. One of major drawbacks of living in any society is that the line between "private" and "public" isn't neither clear nor is it unchanging.

And what I am saying is that for societies to intrude on private things then they need to show a rational and reasonable context to that intrusion.

As society must renew its population in order to sustain itself, this necessarily means that sexual relationships, procreation, child rearing and such is something that society would concern itself with to one extent or another.

This isn't a reasonable argument. Even if Abortion was allowed totally on demand at any point in the pregnancy, there would be no threat to the renewal of the population of a society. The fact is that while there might be a desire to have a need for reproduction in the entire herd, there is no need to require the individuals to so so against their will. Using the logic you have here, then why shouldn't lesbians and women that don't want kids be forced to marry men to have kids as well to make sure that we have a population renewal? Sorry, no, as an argument it just doesn't bear out as reasonable.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Its not that basic a thing. Yes, ultimately it's the Woman's choice, but also her responsibility. One edge of the sword is that if she chooses to end that new life she is responsible for creating that is on her, and if bringing a new life into the world isn't something she's ready for, then imo, it's her responsibility to not put herself in a position where she might. Both Caveats apply here.

I can put you down as "women should be punished for sleeping around" then?

 

[Francesca R]

Which to me is why is should be left to the Doctors to make the call. If they believe that the fetus would be viable and there is no excessive risk to the mother, then any termination at that point should be an induced birth or c-section.

I haven't heard that view before.

It was covered in being specifically excluded from the conversation.

You only excluded "related" and "in a relationship" neither of which necessarily excludes (would-be) "father".

 

[Southwind17]

If your definition is "not reliant on the mother per se" then I don't see how.

You don't? But "not reliant on the mother per se" is the perfect example of separate; reliant the opposite. My 'definition' fits exactly with my position.

 

[Southwind17]

I can put you down as "women should be punished for sleeping around" then?

How can requiring women to take responsibility for the potential consequences of their actions when it comes to pregnancy possibly translate to punishing them, not to mention that such position necessarily implies that such women sleep around?!?

 

[Darat]

For me the difference in DNA is sufficient to establish that there are two different human entities - regardless of the state of development of the unborn child. But you are right. You can make this so complicated that even you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the child's right to life (if any) nor if anybody has the right to interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to completion.

Chimeras must confuse you!

 

[Darat]

I really have no concerns about aborting a fetus or killing a baby before it is born, the wording makes no difference to me.

For me everything changes once the baby is born, then it acquires its own rights and despite it costing me I'm happy to say it should be well looked after, educated, healthcare and so on at the expense of society regardless of the parents ability to provide all that.

I know it puts me in an extremist position compared to many but we have plenty of children in the world and plenty of people happy to make more of them. But for me the point that makes me take this extremist position is that I don't want a child to be brought up by someone who doesn't want it from before it was even born.

 

[Francesca R]

the wording makes no difference to me.

I agree with that. In fact folks’ insistence on the perceived validity of certain terms and invalidity of others (including all of zygote, foetus, unborn child, baby, human, human life, virus, killing, aborting, terminating) as well as ascribing others’ views to religion (meaning flawed when this is done) merely indicates attempts to buttress a view or preference into some kind of hard truth that it isn’t.

 

[psionl0]

Chimeras must confuse you!

Your point being?

 

[applecorped]

I really have no concerns about... killing a baby..

How nice for you

 

[cullennz]

I really have no concerns about aborting a fetus or killing a baby before it is born, the wording makes no difference to me.

For me everything changes once the baby is born, then it acquires its own rights and despite it costing me I'm happy to say it should be well looked after, educated, healthcare and so on at the expense of society regardless of the parents ability to provide all that.

I know it puts me in an extremist position compared to many but we have plenty of children in the world and plenty of people happy to make more of them. But for me the point that makes me take this extremist position is that I don't want a child to be brought up by someone who doesn't want it from before it was even born.

Personally consider that extreme

If you are willing to accept a woman can have an abortion the same day the kid is due for instance, that is stretching the theory you are not taking a persons life.

 

[Darat]

Personally consider that extreme



If you are willing to accept a woman can have an abortion the same day the kid is due for instance, that is stretching the theory you are not taking a persons life.

I said it will make me an extremist to some


As I also said call it aborting a fetus, killing a baby or taking a persons life makes not one iota of a difference to my position or opinion. Or what is being done.

 

[theprestige]

Just because it does, doesn't make it right. Pre-the 1980's most Societies considered Homosexuality wrong enough for it to be illegal, a lot of societies still do.

The question is not one of does society do so, but should it? What is the reasoned and rational argument behind it. For the most part I only see a religious one, and personally, despite being a Christian, I personally believe that no Law should be made on the basis of any Religious belief, and in the US such practice would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

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

I have yet to see you even acknowledge this argument.

 

[pharphis]

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

I have yet to see you even acknowledge this argument.

and it's not a simple dispute. It's literally rights to body autonomy vs rights to life

 

[theprestige]

and it's not a simple dispute. It's literally rights to body autonomy vs rights to life

Exactly.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Absolutely not. A skin cell will not grow into a full human, nor will a fish zygote. Human zygotes grow into humans.

Maybe. One might even go as far as 'usually'. Human zygotes do not always grow into humans. There's a million and one things that can go wrong, most will kill the baby but some merely damage it. Go spout your 'right to life' nonsense to cold heartless DNA.

 

[cullennz]

Maybe. One might even go as far as 'usually'. Human zygotes do not always grow into humans. There's a million and one things that can go wrong, most will kill the baby but some merely damage it. Go spout your 'right to life' nonsense to cold heartless DNA.

...Like having an abortion

 

[Southwind17]

I really have no concerns about aborting a fetus or killing a baby before it is born, the wording makes no difference to me.

For me everything changes once the baby is born ...

How so (putting aside legalities)? What's the fundamental difference between a baby the minute before it's born and the minute after that leads you to this view?

 

[Darat]

How so (putting aside legalities)? What's the fundamental difference between a baby the minute before it's born and the minute after that leads you to this view?

There isn't one. It is merely the arbitrary point I've decided to use.

I suppose if you want some reasoning I'd say there has to be some point at which we decide a bag of mainly water becomes something we decide has rights. To me after birth seems a pretty straightforward to police demarcation line.

And just to make it clear I do also support euthanasia so if a baby is born I'm quite happy it being euthanized or if you like killed if it is going to be nothing but a vegetable all its life or will suffer for a few months before its inevitable death because of defects.

 

[theprestige]

There isn't one. It is merely the arbitrary point I've decided to use.

I suppose if you want some reasoning I'd say there has to be some point at which we decide a bag of mainly water becomes something we decide has rights. To me after birth seems a pretty straightforward to police demarcation line.

And just to make it clear I do also support euthanasia so if a baby is born I'm quite happy it being euthanized or if you like killed if it is going to be nothing but a vegetable all its life or will suffer for a few months before its inevitable death because of defects.

Euthanasia does seem to be a moral choice in some cases, yes.

What I'm really curious about is your position on infanticide of convenience. Is there anything wrong with it, in your opinion? Other than it falling on the "wrong" side of your arbitrary dividing line?