The Third Wheel On Abortion

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 10th, 2019, 1:06 am 

PaulN,

Your argument is self contradictive.

The importance of everyone having sovereignty over their own bodies massively trumps any feelings you have about knocking up little Susy. Get over it and, if you don't want to get anyone pregnant, then use a fricking contraceptive or keep it in your pants.


Sovereignty over our bodies > child birth

You say it’s not my DNA. But when a baby is born with DNA that’s not mine, you expect me to forfeit the sovereignty of my body?

Child birth > sovereignty over my male body

I include labour. All the labour I conduct with my body, includes sovereignty over my own body.

In the first formulae, where I utilise my income is decided by me. In the second formulae, my income is taken from me.

Which formulae do you agree with?

This is all besides the point. I wouldn’t knock up little Susy. If I did, I would support the baby in every way possible. But I like to think we have equality, as in I have rights responsibilities and choices. It seems that is just a dream

-1-,
Let’s be clear on where we agree.

If you take DNA from my spoon in a restraint, it is not my property. It does not belong to me. If you make a baby clone with that DNA, it is not my responsibility.

If I leave my DNA in an empty parking lot, it is not my property. It does not belong to me. If you take it and inseminate someone, it is not my responsibility.

A male and female contribute DNA to a birthing vat. The male decides he doesn’t want the baby. The female may terminate. If she does not, the male has no responsibility.

I’m sure we agree on all this. What I don’t understand is why do the rules change when we talk about conventional birth. It’s “just” a foetus, she can terminate if she knows she can’t support it on her own.

We established that it’s not the males DNA. She has a choice. If she keeps it without first confirming the males ownership of that which he does not own (?), then she has no right and authority over the males support.

The easiest way to put it. A woman has the choice to have a baby or not. But if she wants support, she must ask for it first.

In my case, she would ask me if I would support the birth of her baby. From here I decide if I want to reclaim ownership of my DNA and support it as my own. Either by trying a relationship with her, or if that doesn’t work then support it financially. (Throw in visiting rights etc). If we want equality, then we need an equal choice.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 10th, 2019, 1:16 am 

Serpent » 10 Jan 2019, 11:22 wrote:So, here is a possible misapplication of 'father's rights': factory foreman with barren wife wants offspring; seduces, with blandishments or menaces, a young female employee, then vetoes her decision to abort, is backed by courts based on the claim that she's trying to 'murder' 'his child', which he is willing to adopt. Young employee now stuck with 9 month sentence of discomfort and aforementioned risks, social ostracism, shame, the pain of delivery, the emotional wrench of being parted from a baby she's carried through gestation.
Let's not go back there, okay?


Again it comes down to suffering the consequences of her actions.

She’s part of an affair.
She accepted his sperm, full well knowing about the risks of becoming pregnant.
Hasn’t she put herself in this position?

When the roles are reversed, and it’s a female boss with a young male employee. It’s obvious that he put himself in that position. It’s obvious that he’s responsible. He now must suffer an 18 year sentence of financial burden.

How does a 9 month sentence compare to an 18 year one. Why should one have a choice but not the other.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 10th, 2019, 2:06 pm 

edy420 » January 10th, 2019, 12:16 am wrote:Again it comes down to suffering the consequences of her actions.

She’s part of an affair.
She accepted his sperm, full well knowing about the risks of becoming pregnant.
Hasn’t she put herself in this position?

Right. There it is: Impure women should suffer. They deserve to be deprived of options... Even if they were bullied, intimidated, deceived... maybe even if they were raped? ... maybe even if they're 13 and raped by their older brother... Some USian legislators think so.

When the roles are reversed, and it’s a female boss with a young male employee.
It’s obvious that he put himself in that position. It’s obvious that he’s responsible. He now must suffer an 18 year sentence of financial burden.

That's more difficult to accomplish, but not impossible. She took away his condoms? Or lied about being on the pill? She tricked him into giving her a baby?
Then she's very unlikely to tell him, let alone bring a paternity suit. If this came out in court, I very much doubt he'd be liable for child support, but she would probably lose her job and still be pregnant. Meanwhile, he'd have zero consequences.

How does a 9 month sentence compare to an 18 year one.

Thusly: the 9 month one is for certain; no short-cuts, no escape clause, whether she keeps the baby or not. If she does keep it, she has an additional 18 year sentence of financial support, as well as the daily servicing of a child.
The 18 year 'sentence' for the man applies only if the mother keeps the baby, not if she gives it up; is conditional on his being charged and sentenced; usually tailored to his earnings; comes with negotiated paternal privileges if he wants them, but he's not obliged ever to see or be disturbed by that child if he doesn't want to; support payments can be waived if conditions change (such as, the mother marries a man willing to adopt that child), and compliance is often unenforceable. Lots of variables.

And what has this got to do with abortion?
If she chooses to abort, he's free of any obligation, while she still has to go through a degrading and uncomfortable procedure, after having been through an emotional wringer. There, bad girl punished.

What, exactly, are you complaining about? That he gets a share in a baby he didn't intend to make, or that he's deprived of a baby he didn't intend to make?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 11th, 2019, 12:55 am 

Right. There it is: Impure women should suffer. They deserve to be deprived of options... Even if they were bullied, intimidated, deceived... maybe even if they were raped? ... maybe even if they're 13 and raped by their older brother


You didn’t mention rape. That unfolds our objective of equality. If your being bullied at work however, you can press charges or get another job.

As a man. I like to face up to my responsibilities. I acknowledge that all my actions have consequences. I expect my children to adopt this ideology too.

Do you support this idea, or think it wrong? If I stab someone, I expect to go to prison. If I drive recklessly, I expect to be pulled up or have an accident. If I have sex with a woman, I expect to get her pregnant.

Now, these consequences are not guaranteed. They are a high risk. If the risk is taken, but it doesn’t pay off, then we are at fault, no one else.

Why is it different for a woman, pure or unpure. It seems they get a free pass, but I don’t see why.

Why does this woman get a free pass and not have to suffer the consequence of her actions. (In the case that she has sex willingly)
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby TheVat on January 11th, 2019, 10:22 am 


Why is it different for a woman, pure or unpure. It seems they get a free pass, but I don’t see why.



LOL. This is some sort of web performance art, right? Good stuff, man.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7060
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 11th, 2019, 11:02 am 

edy420 » January 10th, 2019, 11:55 pm wrote:
Why does this woman get a free pass and not have to suffer the consequence of her actions.

Free pass. Cute. I don't have time to explain for the umpty-seventh time something that should have been obvious in the first place.
Instead, I repeat the salient point - if it had one - of this thread:

What, exactly, are you complaining about?

That he gets a share in a baby he didn't intend to make,

or that he's deprived of a baby he didn't intend to make?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 26th, 2019, 8:23 pm 

What, exactly, are you complaining about?
The unjust killing of a Fathers child. If it is established that yes a male party is responsible for his child born or not, then he has rights and accountability for the development of his child.

In the example you provided, we have a bully and an "unpure" woman. Not sure what purity has to do with it (most Christians admit they are unpure) but the general rule applies to couples who agree they are in a relationship. In the case of the bully boss, she doesnt have to tell him shes pregnant. she can terminate safely, knowing that the boss has not yet identified as the biological father of the mass growing in her belly. Long story short, if she terminates without telling him shes pregnant, then shes not a murderer. The biggest con with my argument is easily sidestepped.

That he gets a share in a baby he didn't intend to make

Again, this is an exception to the rule. Men who intend to have sex, should be held accountable for the risk of creating life. this is uncontested. When a man gets a woman pregnant and has a baby, the man is responsible.

Ive built two models. Pro-choice and Pro-their-choice. Obviously they both have pros and cons. To me, in a relationship the model of pro-their-choice better represents a relationship of equality.

If instead of acknowledging both arguments and we instead decide to prioritize one ideal above all else, then we get all sorts of crazy. Its her body, its her choice. This flawed argument reigns supreme over all valid arguments. At least it appears that way to me, and Id like to be proven wrong.

Lets say we have a woman in a relationship who becomes pregnant. Its her body its her choice, to consume alcohol, cannabis, methanphetamine, opiates and heroin. (assuming its legal in her country). From a pro-their-choice perspective, a man has the right to say, I don't appreciate you intoxicating my child like that. But under the Pro-choice regime, the father has no rights, no obligations and no say, simply because its her choice. Not only is it her choice, but its not a baby shes intoxicating. Its a non-human non-sentient being of lesser value than human life. Is this at all accurate, or is there some kind of loophole Im missing where we do get to educate woman on the amount of damage they are doing to their unborn biological mass?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 26th, 2019, 10:09 pm 

edy420 » January 26th, 2019, 7:23 pm wrote:[What, exactly, are you complaining about?]
The unjust killing of a Fathers child. If it is established that yes a male party is responsible for his child born or not, then he has rights and accountability for the development of his child.

So you're back to property.
The abortion is 'unjust' because you think the sperm-spiller (man who had sex without intending to father a child, much as he would have done with a virtual partner) ought to have a claim to whatever might have accidentally resulted.

[That he gets a share in a baby he didn't intend to make]
Again, this is an exception to the rule.

No, it's the usual thing: if there is a baby, both parents are responsible. Sometimes you seem to be okay with this; other times, you're griping about it.

Pro-choice and Pro-their-choice.

Yep. If he doesn't want to be a father, he should refrain from sex with a fertile woman or use birth-control.
If he wants to be a father, he should commit to a fertile woman who wants to be the mother of his child and refrain from sex with any other woman.

Obviously they both have pros and cons. To me, in a relationship the model of pro-their-choice better represents a relationship of equality.

There has never been any such thing as relationship equality.

If instead of acknowledging both arguments and we instead decide to prioritize one ideal above all else, then we get all sorts of crazy.

What ideal?
Abortion is the least desirable option in a far-from ideal situation.
Its her body, its her choice. This flawed argument reigns supreme over all valid arguments.

There is lots of arguing, but no other valid arguments.

Lets say we have a woman in a relationship who becomes pregnant. Its her body its her choice, to consume alcohol, cannabis, methanphetamine, opiates and heroin. (assuming its legal in her country). From a pro-their-choice perspective, a man has the right to say, I don't appreciate you intoxicating my child like that. But under the Pro-choice regime, the father has no rights, no obligations and no say, simply because its her choice. Not only is it her choice, but its not a baby shes intoxicating. Its a non-human non-sentient being of lesser value than human life. Is this at all accurate, or is there some kind of loophole Im missing where we do get to educate woman on the amount of damage they are doing to their unborn biological mass?

None of this is relevant.
None of this is included in the pro-choice argument: it's a complete misrepresentation.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby BadgerJelly on January 27th, 2019, 4:31 am 

Edy -

You’re never going to persuade someone that your definition of “murder” is good and theirs is bad.

I don’t view abortion as “murder”. You seem to and so do others. Fair enough. Whatever the legality of the situation it doesn’t change the choice people have all that much when it comes to life and death decisions. When it comes to abortion it is a deeply hyperbolic subject because some people out there who are “pro life” are not saying ALL abortions are wrong. It does seems sensible to constantly look at this law and amend as required.

I hope abortion will remain legal though although the details do certainly need to be looked at closely and repeatedly. It is certainly a tough thing to say abortions are not allowed after x weeks.

As to the father’s choice? Again, I don’t see how anyone can tell someone else what to do with their body. Such conversations should be had between partners before such a situation arises - and people being people they are prone to changing their minds when reality hits. Even so, all relationships are taken on with some degree of faith, trust and understanding; even the there is almost certainly a guarantee that the shit will hit the fan at some point and then it can get nasty for all manner of reasons (this kind of subject some latch onto in order to justify hatred too).

To cut to the chase if your partner has abortion after you specifically discussed never to do this, and you cannot forgive her actions and feel maltreated, then leave her. Move past her and get on with your life - payback is self-mutilation and if you’re religious then you havenl excuse because you likely believe that she’ll get what she deserves anyway (or maybe you will and THAT is the fear?)

One thing that does concern me is abortion based on diseases/genetic “disorders”. That is a worry for the near future and may have some seriously sticky legal ramifications!
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5571
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
TheVat liked this post


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on February 1st, 2019, 4:32 pm 

Serpent,

None of this is relevant.
None of this is included in the pro-choice argument: it's a complete misrepresentation.


I suspect I misrepresent. All I have done is take all the facts you propose as true, and apply them to multiple situations to try and measure their moral value.

Am I not correct to assume that based on the moral foundation of pro-choice logic and reason, it is morally just to consume alcohol and legal drugs up to 24 weeks of gestation.

This assumption makes it impossible for me to adopt the pro-choice model, even if only for entertainment.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder(FASD), is scientific proof that harming a 23 week fetus is equal to harming a human child. Pregnancy and alcoholism is a real moral dilemma, but from the pro-choice model we can not even discuss the topic. Science becomes irrelevant as does the logic involved with it. Therefore, the moral dilemma associated with FASD becomes non-existent in a world where it’s her choice.

I’ve mentioned this dilemma multiple times. The pro-choice model fails to provide moral justification for the protection of an unborn child from any harm. Please show me how to counter this assumption.

BadgerJelly,

It’s not about trying to convert people. I want to know if my beliefs are wrong. I like to philosophise. I like to entertain multiple arguments even those that aren’t my own. Debate reinforces my beliefs and helps me identify weaknesses in my beliefs. Discussion helps us grow our intellect. If I convert someone, that’s just bonus points.

I’m trying to follow the latest pro-choice arguments. Governments are pushing for late term abortions. They have prioritised this idea so high up the heirarchy, that it’s “her choice”, appears to have a deities status.

Now “her choice” extends to killing a born child that survives an abortion(at least it does in a proposed legal bill?). Only a deity has the right to decide if a born person lives or dies. According to Trumps opposition this should be legal if she decides she can’t raise the child.

From the little I have been able to look into, this discussion still excludes the Father, even when it’s born.

I don’t agree with the idea that we can just leave someone. Commitment means committing. I am committed to my marriage, and to providing and protecting my children.

Luckily my wife shares my opinions on abortion. We have 7 children together. If she abort number 8, will you argue that I should just abandon my committments?

I know my Deity. If I knew that committing suicide would mean my wife abandons the abortion of my child, then I would gladly sacrifice my soul for the chance that my child may have a chance. Amen.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on February 1st, 2019, 7:51 pm 

edy420 » February 1st, 2019, 3:32 pm wrote:I suspect I misrepresent. All I have done is take all the facts you propose as true, and apply them to multiple situations to try and measure their moral value.

I have used common scenarios of unplanned conception as examples. The people and situations I mention are hypothetical. There no "facts" to be applied to other situations.
And moral value can only be "measured" - if it can - on a scale provided by a belief system. We do not share a belief system, and so cannot measure each other's moral values.

Am I not correct to assume that based on the moral foundation of pro-choice logic and reason, it is morally just to consume alcohol and legal drugs up to 24 weeks of gestation.

Not that I've ever heard of. The issue of pro-choice is limited to a woman's right to decide whether she carries a pregnancy to term or not.

This assumption makes it impossible for me to adopt the pro-choice model, even if only for entertainment.

This assumption is yours alone and totally irrelevant - still - to the discussion.
You dragged it in when you ran out of variations on the theme of sperm-owner's rights.

If people decide to have a baby together, they have already answered the single question covered by pro-choice, and are beyond the scope of this topic.
Prenatal care is a separate matter. If you want to start a conversation about gestation, foetal development and what influences affect it, there is plenty of interesting science to cover.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on February 8th, 2019, 2:37 pm 

My point is that a pro-their-choice Father has the right to tip the alcohol down the sink. It’s an immoral action because it’s the destruction of someone else’s property. But it’s clearly justified if we can accept that yes, he is protecting his child.

The model you support states that it’s not his baby at all. Therefore he has no right to commit the immoral act of dumping alcohol.

I want consistency. When we all start to agree and live life by a certain set of rules, there are people who will exploit those rules. Even today FASD is a real problem and woman do drink while pregnant. My question is do we address this problem acknowledging that yes it is entirely their choice. Or in the case of a mutual relationship do we address it, acknowledging that the father has a right to protect his child. This is no hypothetical scenario. It’s a real situation that shouldn’t be swept under the carpet. And it highlights the biggest con in any model, which is the lack of protection for an unborn child from any source.

Edit*
My assumption based on the pro-choice model is this. A Father does not have the right to dump alcohol down the sink when his pregnant wife wants to consume drugs and alcohol. Whether we choose to acknowledge this or not, does not mean this statement has any more or less truth. Based on what you’ve told me, this is true.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1284
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on February 8th, 2019, 4:03 pm 

edy420 » February 8th, 2019, 1:37 pm wrote:
Edit*
My assumption based on the pro-choice model is this. A Father does not have the right to dump alcohol down the sink when his pregnant wife wants to consume drugs and alcohol. Whether we choose to acknowledge this or not, does not mean this statement has any more or less truth. Based on what you’ve told me, this is true.

This has nothing to do with pro-choice or abortion rights.
If you want to start to a new topic on parental rights and obligations during gestation, fine.
But it's irrelevant here.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
TheVat liked this post


Previous

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests