Abortion (1 Viewer)

[Annihilist]

These "documents" get amended and repealed all the time to reflect changes in social norms and values. The reason this hasn't changed isn't because we are a static society but because their is no misrepresentation of a social norm, whatever your or my personal views on the issue may be.

My point was we shouldn't be trying to preserve us as a static society.

i think he was referring purely to the legality of it in that post rather than whether or not its right/wrong in an ethical sense

I am aware. I was commenting and not rebutting.

 

[Annihilist]

Why can't a man have a say in whether his child is born or not?

Who gets trumps when both parties adamantly disagree?

 

[Lentern]

Why can't a man have a say in whether his child is born or not?

Because it's not his body that is going to undergo a physical and hormonal roller-coaster.

 

[Galapagos]

Why can't a man have a say in whether his child is born or not?

Because it's not his body that is going to undergo a physical and hormonal roller-coaster.

^This.

Also, I don't believe male policy makers should have any say on the issue (except if giving a medical opinion); they aren't the ones who have to give birth, or undergo any other physical/emotional changes involved with pregnancy.

 

[funkshen]

Because it's not his body that is going to undergo a physical and hormonal roller-coaster.

why should anybody have any say in anything that doesn't involve their own body undergoing some arbitrary process

and of course the flipside of your argument is that a man also undergoes a "physical and hormonal" or more appropriately, emotional, "roller-coaster," though perhaps not to the same extent (not that you could ever compare it)

 

[Lentern]

why should anybody have any say in anything that doesn't involve their own body undergoing some arbitrary process

and of course the flipside of your argument is that a man also undergoes a "physical and hormonal" or more appropriately, emotional, "roller-coaster," though perhaps not to the same extent (not that you could ever compare it)

Oh shutup you agree with me.

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

why

I think it's pretty self evident how someone could come to the conclusion. If you don't accept the rights of "potential human life" are the same as the rights of "actual human life" then it is a victimless act up until it develops pain sensitivity.

pretty much this^

 

[funkshen]

Oh shutup you agree with me.

is a man and a woman agreeing to have a baby a contract?

 

[Lentern]

No.

 

[funkshen]

No.

then how are reproductive rights allocated

 

[Lentern]

then how are reproductive rights allocated

Why are you doing this?

 

[funkshen]

Why are you doing this?

you're the one that said only a woman gets to decide what happens in her uterus because only she is undergoing a a "physical and hormonal roller-coaster." this is a ridiculous idea.

this is patently false and and contradictory. first of all, a man is cursed by his biology and social conditioning to be affected, in some way or another, by the his impregnation of a woman. so he too experiences a "physical" roller-coaster (your criterion for deciding who gets to have input in the decision). second of all, you also believe the state has a legitimate role in regulating when, where, and how a woman receives an abortion (i.e. you must adhere to some other criterion for whose decision it is) third of all, you believe that a pain-suffering baby trumps a woman's right to decide.

 

[Lentern]

You are talking absolute crap because you feel like being a devils advocate. Absolute crap.

 

[funkshen]

You are talking absolute crap because you feel like being a devils advocate. Absolute crap.

its not absolute crap you baboon. you either

1) posit the absolutely self-sovereignty of women, and that is therefore their right to decide at all times because its their body undergoing change (unless she is mentally unfit of course), which is what you stated and is patently false
or
2) recognise that it is far more complicated than "my body i do what i want", which you of course do because you believe in the right of a pain-feeling foetus, and the right of the public in legislating what a woman can and cannot do with her body. the corollary to this is that there may, in fact, be a legitimate role for men (not necessarily in obstructing a woman from getting an abortion, mind you)

 

[Lentern]

its not absolute crap you baboon. you either

1) posit the absolutely self-sovereignty of women, and that is therefore their right to decide at all times because its their body undergoing change (unless she is mentally unfit of course), which is what you stated and is patently false
or
2) recognise that it is far more complicated than "my body i do what i want", which you of course do because you believe in the right of a pain-feeling foetus, and the right of the public in legislating what a woman can and cannot do with her body. the corollary to this is that there may, in fact, be a legitimate role for men (not necessarily in obstructing a woman from getting an abortion, mind you)

I said at the beginning of the thread that I think denying a woman a prenatal abortion is tantamount to rape. I stand by that. Those positions you've attributed to me in (2) are pathetic distortions of what I said.

 

[funkshen]

I said at the beginning of the thread that I think denying a woman a prenatal abortion is tantamount to rape. I stand by that. Those positions you've attributed to me in (2) are pathetic distortions of what I said.

first of all, all abortions are prenatal. and i know that you don't think all abortions should be legal (legality for you is contingent on a foetus's pain sensitivity, no?) what i outlined in (2) is therefore a perfect description of your belief: you have a time-sensitive stakeholder view of pregnancy. you believe that before a foetus develops the capacity to feel pain, a woman can do what she wants (time-sensitive) and the law should exclude men from this decision at this time. you also believe that the woman, the baby, and the state have a legitimate role (i.e. are stakeholders) in determining what a woman can do with her body after pain-sensitivity develops. why not a man? if a man and woman agree to have a baby, and the woman later reneges, maybe the man should be compensated, or have a right to be consulted (not a right to veto, mind you).

 

[Lentern]

first of all, all abortions are prenatal.

Are they? http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

and i know that you don't think all abortions should be legal (legality for you is contingent on a child's pain sensitivity, no?) what i outlined in (2) is therefore a perfect description of your belief: you have a time-sensitive stakeholder view of pregnancy. you believe that before a foetus develops the capacity to feel pain, a woman can do what she wants (time-sensitive) and the law should exclude men from this decision at this time.

This is a complete misrepresentation of my views. I never said the development pain sensitivity should preclude abortion. I'm sure you wish I had, that is your habit, to insert augmentations into someone else's views to make them easier to discredit.

you also believe that the woman, the baby, and the state have a legitimate role (i.e. are stakeholders) in determining what a woman can do with her body after pain-sensitivity develops. why not a man? if a man and woman agree to have a baby, and the woman later reneges, maybe the man should be compensated, or have a right to be consulted (not a right to veto, mind you).

I've never said the state or the baby had a role to play. You are lying through your teeth.

 

[Annihilist]

why should anybody have any say in anything that doesn't involve their own body undergoing some arbitrary process

and of course the flipside of your argument is that a man also undergoes a "physical and hormonal" or more appropriately, emotional, "roller-coaster," though perhaps not to the same extent (not that you could ever compare it)

Why should anybody have any say in something which only involves someone else's body?

It's not about the passive statement "not my body". It's the affirmative statement "someone else's body".

then how are reproductive rights allocated

Rights to do with your own body as you please. "Reproductive rights" are merely a product of the rights to your own body.

 

[funkshen]

I think it's pretty self evident how someone could come to the conclusion. If you don't accept the rights of "potential human life" are the same as the rights of "actual human life" then it is a victimless act up until it develops pain sensitivity.

i remember reading this a while ago and i guess i got the impression that you believed it. reading back, you were only explaining the reasoning behind the conclusion that was not yours.

i am so sorry lentern, have an abortion, its on me

also i still stand by the point that a woman is not the only one that goes through a "physical and hormonal roller-coaster" so this is a useless criterion.

 

[Annihilist]

also i still stand by the point that a woman is not the only one that goes through a "physical and hormonal roller-coaster" so this is a useless criterion.

If both the man and the woman involved disagree adamantly and persistently on whether the woman should have an abortion, who gets the final say? If both forces are equal, who wins? Or who should win?