Men's Abortion Rights.

Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

A baby one minute before it's born is a 'bag of mainly water'?!? You mean as in humans are largely made of water, or a baby resembles a bag of water until it's born???

So how about an alternative 'arbitrary point': at the point it can speak, or how about the point it can walk? No let's be more rationale ... how about it's 16th birthday? Yes I'm sure people tend to acquire certain rights at that age. That would seem more rational than the day a person is born, no???
 
theprestige said:
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?
Click to expand...

I only threw in the euthanasia comment to make it clear that I don't think society's responsibility to a born baby ends with the birth. But this is a thread about abortion not infanticide so some folk may not want us to derail the thread to discuss post birth killing of a baby. If you want to discuss it start a new thread and I'll answer you there.
 
Southwind17 said:
A baby one minute before it's born is a 'bag of mainly water'?!? You mean as in humans are largely made of water, or a baby resembles a bag of water until it's born???
Click to expand...

As in we are all nothing more than a bag of water with a few other odds and ends thrown in.


Southwind17 said:
So how about an alternative 'arbitrary point': at the point it can speak, or how about the point it can walk? No let's be more rationale ... how about it's 16th birthday? Yes I'm sure people tend to acquire certain rights at that age. That would seem more rational than the day a person is born, no???
Click to expand...

We are talking about abortion in this thread i.e. pre birth. As I said to theprestige if you also want to discuss infanticide than I think we need to do so in a new thread.
 
cullennz said:
...Like having an abortion
Click to expand...

Yes, most gone-wrong human live zygotes abort. Some don't. And some of those that do abort, don't flush from the body by themselves. There are just as many ways for a pregnancy to kill the mother as it is to kill itself.
 
Darat said:
I only threw in the euthanasia comment to make it clear that I don't think society's responsibility to a born baby ends with the birth. But this is a thread about abortion not infanticide so some folk may not want us to derail the thread to discuss post birth killing of a baby. If you want to discuss it start a new thread and I'll answer you there.
Click to expand...
I thought that this thread was about the right of men to tell a women if or when abortion is OK.

You might draw the line at birth but you are still arbitrating on the question of abortion.
 
Darat said:
We are talking about abortion in this thread i.e. pre birth.
Click to expand...
Yes I get that. I'm just trying to understand your arbitrary threshold in context - in particular why you consider that a barrel of water within a cupboard connected with a hose to a mains supply is fundamentally different from a barrel of water removed from the cupboard and disconnected from the mains supply. Aren't they still both just barrels of water - functioning exactly the same? I think, if we're to distinguish between those two barrels of water for the purpose of justifying whether we dispose of one and retain the other, it probably requires a different test.
 
Southwind17 said:
Yes I get that. I'm just trying to understand your arbitrary threshold in context - in particular why you consider that a barrel of water within a cupboard connected with a hose to a mains supply is fundamentally different from a barrel of water removed from the cupboard and disconnected from the mains supply. Aren't they still both just barrels of water - functioning exactly the same? I think, if we're to distinguish between those two barrels of water for the purpose of justifying whether we dispose of one and retain the other, it probably requires a different test.
Click to expand...
But I'm not saying there is a fundamental difference, I thought I'd made that very clear. In the end if there is to be legal abortion than we are going to have to set an arbitrary line somewhere, it's akin to an age of consent. No one truly thinks there is a fundamental change that happens between "age of consent minus 1 day" and "age of consent plus 1 day" but we need to set a line for practical policing.
 
Darat said:
But I'm not saying there is a fundamental difference, I thought I'd made that very clear. In the end if there is to be legal abortion than we are going to have to set an arbitrary line somewhere, it's akin to an age of consent. No one truly thinks there is a fundamental change that happens between "age of consent minus 1 day" and "age of consent plus 1 day" but we need to set a line for practical policing.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose the issue for me then is where you've set your arbitrary line. To my mind it's equivalent to setting the age of consent at say 50. How can somebody who's 49 possibly be deemed too young? Hence how can a baby one day prior to birth possibly be deemed to be suitable for abortion?
 
Southwind17 said:
Well I suppose the issue for me then is where you've set your arbitrary line. To my mind it's equivalent to setting the age of consent at say 50. How can somebody who's 49 possibly be deemed too young? Hence how can a baby one day prior to birth possibly be deemed to be suitable for abortion?
Click to expand...
Because it is unwanted and we allow people to abort unwanted babies.
 
Darat said:
Because it is unwanted and we allow people to abort unwanted babies.
Click to expand...
Nah I'm not accepting that - too simple a position. We only allow people to abort unwanted babies up to a certain stage of development. That will always be the case. Your arbitrary line ignores that, so essentially the position you hold is both untenable and unjustified.

Good attempt, but must try harder. :D
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like some bridges collapse before they're completed but that doesn't mean you're not building a bridge.
 
Southwind17 said:
Nah I'm not accepting that - too simple a position. We only allow people to abort unwanted babies up to a certain stage of development. That will always be the case. Your arbitrary line ignores that, so essentially the position you hold is both untenable and unjustified.



Good attempt, but must try harder. :D
Click to expand...

Not accepting what? That my arbitrary line is different to yours?
 
Southwind17 said:
We only allow people to abort unwanted babies up to a certain stage of development. That will always be the case. Your arbitrary line ignores that, so essentially the position you hold is both untenable and unjustified.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Francesca R said:
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.
Click to expand...
And it's a line that is a lot more objective and easy to determine than the ones we set now. 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.
 
Amazer said:
As a devil's advocate:

The fertilized egg (and from there onwards) is a human life... as such it deserves the same rights and protection as any other human life. It's our duty as society to enforce those rights and that protection.
Click to expand...
To which I would ask; to what extent to you, as a supporter of restrictions on womens' bodily integrity, consider it reasonable to endanger the lives of those women by forcing them to involuntarily remain pregnant?
Compared to the 'normal' risk of death or serious injury over the period of a pregnancy, is a 25% increase acceptable? 50%? 100%? 200%? 4o0%? 800%? 1600%?
 
I love threads like this... pure mental masturbation.

Although I understand the logic behind the complaint that the father doesn't have the same rights as the mother, there's just not a reasonable alternative solution.

Best we can do as-is.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I can put you down as "women should be punished for sleeping around" then?
Click to expand...

No... but just like men, if they don't use protection, they bear responsibility for their carelessness, and there is no need to be a whore, whether that whore is male, female, or regardless of sexual orientation. Sleeping around comes with risks and consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom