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?

The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 3rd, 2019, 7:23 pm 

A friend of mine wept as his premature baby died, after 6 minutes of life. It was under twelve weeks in development. My simple mind, likes to think that no one would say this man was not a Father. But in his mind, and other men, we are Fathers the instant we discover our partner is with child. This substantiates the following premises.

A male is a significant party, within a birthing unit. He has feelings for an unborn child, and therefore authority on the termination of his property.

By birthing unit, I mean the collection of parties involved in the raising of a child.

A male must provide monetary support for a child he does not want. A one night stand mistake for example. From this I derive, a male is responsible for the cultivation of his sperm. Either he is or is not, pick one. If we agree that yes a male is responsible then all parties within the birthing unit have responsibility for the biological mass they produce.

Termination of property, in this premises means the killing of a males cultivated sperm. Sperm is the biological property of a male. The killing of a persons biological parts should be determined by the owner. If it’s left to die at the owners discretion then so be it. A finger for example. If I cut my finger off, it’s not acceptable that someone else put it into a fire. It’s still mine and only I may destroy it. (Most people would get it sown back on)

When discussing the topic of males rights with other men, they are like deer in the headlights. They like to think they have rights but act like victims, afraid to stand up for their position. Especially if I ask them, would they oppose an abortion of their 8 month unborn baby.

Also, allow me to better describe the definition of abortion. Abortion is the manual, mechanical birth of a baby. A natural birth, has the baby born whole, in one piece. Abortion is an unnatural birth. When a Dr pulls out a leg, that leg is born. That leg is a born product of the birthing unit.

I believe the topic of abortion is a moral issue, which varies from person to person. For this reason it should not be a legal issue, but! A Father has the right to protect his child, born or not. This leads me to my ultimate point.

Abortion requires the consent of the biological Father. If terminated against his will, then legal action must be enforced, for the murder of his child.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby PaulN on January 3rd, 2019, 9:28 pm 

If us guys start carrying babies inside our bodies (ectopic pregnancy perhaps) then we might have more credibility on this topic. I don't think a man should have legal control over a fetus when it's still a part of a woman's body. Historically, that path has led to abuse, oppression and enslavement of women. You can have all the feelings you want, but if it's not part of your body then I think the pregnant person's feelings should receive greater consideration. You put in a few minutes of pleasurable recreation while the woman has to put in nine months of intense physical changes and medical risks and so on.

As for "his property, " really consider what you are saying there. No part of a woman's body is your (expletive deleted) property.
PaulN
Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 3rd, 2019, 10:49 pm 

You put in a few minutes of pleasurable recreation while the woman has to put in nine months of intense physical changes and medical risks and so on.


My argument, is the development of a human life, is the responsibility of the birthing unit. Generally speaking, both parties put in a few minutes of pleasure. Both parties put in a lifetime of sacrifice.

While the Mother stays home, the Father works to support them both. In NZ we are given family assistance until the child is 5. Then the Mother needs to find work, to continue their lifestyle financially.

I don’t want to compare the sacrifice, but my point is, you can not discredit the sacrifice a man makes, as a member of the birthing unit, sometimes against his will.

As for "his property, " really consider what you are saying there. No part of a woman's body is your (expletive deleted) property.


If I provide the iron and someone builds a car, the iron in that car is still my property. Just because it’s been developed into something else does not nullify my ownership.

When sperm is provided, it has a task. If the woman accepts the sperm, then she accepts the task. The issue can easily be pre-empted by, keeping it in his pants.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 3rd, 2019, 10:51 pm 

I'd like to add that 'property' really shouldn't enter any discussion on this sensitive topic.
Once a substance has left the body of its producer, unless it is deliberately collected by that person, that substance is no longer that person's property. Any effluents you wish to preserve for whatever purpose should be collected in a suitable container. Lose the stuff; lose ownership. (This includes blood donated to medicine, spittle sent for DNA testing, urine flushed away in public facilities and feces deposited behind a serendipitous hedge.)

Anyway, I've discussed this issue with a number of D&C patients (not for research: these interviews were part of my job at one time). Abortion was - at least back in the 70's - not anyone's top choice of birth control. It could be a stressful, wrenching, even traumatic experience. For the majority of women who have abortions, it's just the least bad option when all the good ones are closed.

If I provide the iron and someone builds a car, the iron in that car is still my property. Just because it’s been developed into something else does not nullify my ownership.

Yes, it does. When you sold it or gave it away or mislaid it, you forfeited ownership.
Else, the weaver can repossess your clothes, the brick-maker can move into your house - God only knows what the farmer who provided the vegetables in your salad is entitled to do.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
LomaxdooglesPaulN liked this post


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 3rd, 2019, 11:02 pm 

It’s a sensitive topic because someone is being oppressed. In this instance, the Fathers rights are oppressed. In a world of free speech, I would expect that oppressed men may have a voice.

Once a substance has left the body of its producer, unless it is deliberately collected by that person, that substance is no longer that person's property.


If that were true, then I’d have the right to impregnate 10 woman and owe them nothing. Is it my property or is it the Mothers, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Once conception begins, it is the property of the birthing unit, of which a male is a member.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 3rd, 2019, 11:37 pm 

edy420 » January 3rd, 2019, 10:02 pm wrote:It’s a sensitive topic because someone is being oppressed. In this instance, the Fathers rights are oppressed. In a world of free speech, I would expect that oppressed men may have a voice.

Nobody's oppressing them. If they had a relationship with a prospective mother, discussed their options and both agreed to have a baby and made mutually acceptable provisions for its care, he would have an equal voice.
If he were forced to donate sperm and not consulted in how it would be used, then he would be oppressed. Careless copulation and its consequences are not oppression.

[Once a substance has left the body of its producer, it is no longer that person's property.]

If that were true, then I’d have the right to impregnate 10 woman and owe them nothing.

How do you figure? You don't own 10 women, or even one woman, and you no longer own whatever fluids you may have spilled, wherever.

Is it my property or is it the Mothers, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Not the most appropriate phraseology, but what they hey. If you piss on a vacant lot, nobody owns the urine... (unless you're picked up by police and they collect some in evidence, which sample then belongs to the court.) If you give blood to the Red Cross, it belongs to them, not you. If you deposit semen in a woman, it becomes her property, not yours.
Nothing gives you the right to impregnate anyone.

Once conception begins, it is the property of the birthing unit, of which a male is a member.

There is no "birthing unit". If a couple has, knowingly and willingly, entered into an agreement to produce a child, they become a pair of expectant parents.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 12:20 am 

Nobody's oppressing them. If they had a relationship with a prospective mother, discussed their options and both agreed to have a baby and made mutually acceptable provisions for its care, he would have an equal voice.


Even in a relationship, the male can disagree. But he has no voice.

The researchers found three common themes among the men’s responses: 1) loss and grief, 2) helplessness and/or victimization, and 3) spiritual healing.

Coyle and Rue offer several examples of men expressing each of the themes. A sample of the ones on “Loss and Grief” include:

I was a father one day and not the next. She told me she had a miscarriage, then I got a call from the abortion clinic, she forgot her medication. I have never felt so awful in my life. (2 years postabortion)

I would have made an excellent father, and I feel now at my age (49) my chance has probably gone. And this makes me sad. (9 years postabortion)

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/ ... bortion-2/

A young friend of mine committed suicide because he had no say. Ironacally she decided to keep the baby. I guarantee he was oppressed.

Not the most appropriate phraseology, but what they hey. If you piss on a vacant lot, nobody owns the urine... (unless you're picked up by police and they collect some in evidence, which sample then belongs to the court.) If you give blood to the Red Cross, it belongs to them, not you. If you deposit semen in a woman, it becomes her property, not yours.


First point is self contradictory. The court would declare the evidence as my urine.

If someone receives my blood, they have my blood coursing through their veins, even when acknowledging new ownership. My rights of ownership however, relies on my consent. If I consent for the use of my blood, only then have I submitted my ownership rights.

And that’s all I ask for with regards to a biological mass termination. Consent. I’m not advocating for or against abortion. Simply, that all parties give consent, as per legal requirement.

Let’s consider three stages of human development of which I am scrutinising here.
1. Pre-insemination
2. Conception and fetal development.(a biological mass which has the DNA of two parties)
3. Birth and childhood.

In 1, we agree that a mans sperm is his own, until it enters the “vacant” lot. Here we part ways, but regardless let’s move onto stage 2.

Stage 2. Here either a man is responsible or not. Which is it? It’s of vital importance, because only when we establish an answer here, can we move onto a Fathers rights and responsibilities with regards to stage 3
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 4th, 2019, 1:07 am 

edy420 » January 3rd, 2019, 11:20 pm wrote:Even in a relationship, the male can disagree.

Disagree with what? His wife's or girlfriend's decision not to be a mother? That's not his choice, it's hers. Of course he hasn't got a voice! If he wants to be a father, he needs to be in a relationship with someone who wants to be a mother.

[i]The researchers found three common themes among the men’s responses: 1) loss and grief, 2) helplessness and/or victimization, and 3) spiritual healing.

Responses to what?
Finding out that a woman they had sex with aborted an unplanned pregnancy.

Did the woman agree to become pregnant and deliver a child, then change her mind and abort the foetus?
That would be a breach of promise, a betrayal, cruel and morally reprehensible.
But still not oppression, which is a use of force to limit a person's freedom. The aspiring father is disappointed of something he hoped to have, not deprived of his freedom to act. He can go find a willing partner in parenthood.

Did both partners have sex without discussing the possible consequences, and she got pregnant by accident and decided against having a baby?
That would be her right. If he wasn't promised a baby, he has no reasonable grounds to expect a baby.

Did they take precautions against pregnancy and the birth control method failed?
Then he has no grounds whatever to complain that what they both wanted (no baby) is what happened.

Do these men feel this way about all of the irresponsible sexual encounters they ever had that did not result in conception? Did they have any reason to suppose that any woman with whom they had sex would be willing to give them a child?

Do they have any idea how stressful life can be for couples who didn't intend to spend their lives together or raise a child, but felt they "had to get married"? Or what it's like to be the unwanted child?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby davidm on January 4th, 2019, 1:53 pm 

A woman is not your property. Nor is a fetus, even if you helped make it. Also, a fetus is not a child, and it is not a person. Finally, please learn the difference between plural and possessive. It's not that hard.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 4:14 pm 

davidm » 05 Jan 2019, 06:53 wrote:A woman is not your property. Nor is a fetus, even if you helped make it. Also, a fetus is not a child, and it is not a person. Finally, please learn the difference between plural and possessive. It's not that hard.


When a house is partially built, someone owns it. When the house is complete, someone still owns it, in this case a woman. It is non-sensical to say that a partially built house is the property of one, but the responsibility of a complete house somehow magically becomes the responsibility of a person who had no control over the development.

If a male has no ownership or responsibility of an unborn baby. Why then, does it follow that he is now responsible when the baby pops out. How do you go from no ownership to now, magically, ownership.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 4:19 pm 

1930s woman were oppressed by sexist double standard. They had no choice. The irony. They want equality on the topics of politics, ethics, work place rights. But when it comes to ownership, rights and responsibilities, they want it all when it suites them. They want to enforce it all back onto the male when it suits them. Unacceptable. I want consistency and equality. The Father is half responsible for a child, at the born stage. Therefore he’s half responsible at the unborn stage.

And everyone agrees, that when a Mother is expectant, then the male party responsible is a Father. He doesn’t magically become a Father 9 months post incemination. During a miscarriage the Mother and Father suffer equally. This is an uncontested fact which contradicts the position you are advocating.

Disagree with what? His wife's or girlfriend's decision not to be a mother? That's not his choice, it's hers.


Who’s choice is it to be a Father? Mutual sex means, risk getting pregnant. Are we unequal sexists, on this topic? The Mother isn’t dismantling her own body. If abortion is on the table that’s ok, but make it a mutual decision.

Did the woman agree to become pregnant and deliver a child, then change her mind and abort the foetus?
That would be a breach of promise, a betrayal, cruel and morally reprehensible.
But still not oppression, which is a use of force to limit a person's freedom. The aspiring father is disappointed of something he hoped to have, not deprived


You actively avoid my question on whether a Father is responsible for a pregnancy, but here you inadvertently hint at the idea that, he has no ownership at the point of pregnancy.

I could agree that the Father has no rights and responsibilities of a foetus. This logically mean at this point, all his rights and responsibilities are forfeit. They are trumped by a woman’s rights to her own body.

But, if I am to understand your position clearly at this point, a Father has the right to avoid the risk of pregnancy pre-conception(keep it in his pants). During pregnancy, his rights and responsibilities are trumped and forfeit. Logically, it then follows that he has no rights and responsibilities at the time of birth, they have been forfeit. If your position does not extend to this logical truth, then please explain how I misunderstand your position.

My position holds no double standard. Rights and responsibilities remain consistent. Consistent because a male is always responsible for the product of mutual sex. As too, should be a woman. Yet, if they both agree to terminate, then rights and responsibilities are mutually null. That defines “pro-choice”.

If I understand your position correctly, you are “pro-her dictatorship”. The Mother dictates if a man becomes a Father or not. Basically the exact opposite of pro-choice. Inconsistent, double standard. I don’t care what a woman does with her own body. But dismantling a Fathers unborn child without his consent is in fact, murder.

I think the misunderstanding is how we define the word Father. As I understand your position, somehow a Father is defined as only at birth. That wasn’t the case with my 7 children, nor has it been the case with literally every birth I know of. When a Mother was expectant, a Father was expectant. Equality and consistency.

Serpent. Explain how a male is not the Father during pregnancy, when clearly he is.


 
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 4th, 2019, 5:08 pm 

I ran out of time last night and didn't finish answering this.

edy420 » January 3rd, 2019, 11:20 pm wrote:
First point [urine in vacant lot] is self contradictory. The court would declare the evidence as my urine.

No, the evidence is that it was you who you put it there. They don't give it back.

If someone receives my blood, they have my blood coursing through their veins, even when acknowledging new ownership.

No, you're just hanging on to an illusion. What they get is an anonymous unit of whatever type of blood they need. No ownership is attributed.

My rights of ownership however, relies on my consent. If I consent for the use of my blood, only then have I submitted my ownership rights.

Forfeited? That is precisely what you have done in the act of donating. You can't have it back, unless you're in need of a transfusion, and then you likely get someone's else's anyway.

And that’s all I ask for with regards to a biological mass termination. Consent.

You gave tacit consent* when failing to retain you precious bodily fluids in a suitable container.
*Unless there was at least a verbal agreement to bring a potential conception to term.


Let’s consider three stages of human development of which I am scrutinising here.
1. Pre-insemination
2. Conception and fetal development.(a biological mass which has the DNA of two parties)
3. Birth and childhood.

In 1, we agree that a mans sperm is his own, until it enters the “vacant” lot.

No, the analogy to the vacant lot would be a hotel bed-sheet (it automatically becomes the property of their laundry service.) In this instance, we have already established that the suspect semen was deposited in a person capable of taking possession; therefore, it is then the woman's property to do with as she wishes.
She does not need your consent to use an IUD and spermicide, to douche, to take a morning-after pill or any other action she decides is appropriate.
You can't spill your seed and keep it too.

Stage 2. Here either a man is responsible or not. Which is it?

Both partners are equally responsible for creating the situation.

However, culpability confers no rights. If you hit a heedless pedestrian with your car, you don't assume any rights over that person's treatment or rehabilitation. Both the driver and the pedestrian may be equally responsible for the accident, but it's the pedestrian whose body is damaged. He can be assumed to take his share of the blame in the form of physical suffering and incapacity. The driver pays his share in medical bills and car repairs.

If they create a new human being, both parents should share the burden - though the male often gets away with no contribution beyond that one lucky sperm - the female, through pregnancy, childbirth and the rigors of aiding a member of this difficult species to adulthood; the father's is -- whatever role is negotiated by the two parties, maybe their respective families/advisors, and possibly the courts.

If the pregnancy is terminated, there is no Stage 3: no birth, no child support, no visitation rights. She pays her share of the blame in anxiety, decision-making (not as easy as men assume - at least, it wasn't for most of the women I spoke to) wear and tear on her body and her normal life. His share is usually no price at all - exactly as if no conception had taken place.
If he doesn't know, he's not bothered.
If he finds out....

Here is the question I find interesting. Why?
What's happened between indulging in recreational sex and discovering that a zygote with one's DNA in it hasn't survived to term? Surely it doesn't cause all that grief, loss, helplessness every time a man's sexual partner fails to conceive. No baby then, no baby now. What's different?
I believe what changes is what you keep harping on: ownership.
My blood, my spit, my pee, my sperm. It's not.
If you want to keep it, keep it to yourself.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby davidm on January 4th, 2019, 5:32 pm 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 2:14 pm wrote:
davidm » 05 Jan 2019, 06:53 wrote:A woman is not your property. Nor is a fetus, even if you helped make it. Also, a fetus is not a child, and it is not a person. Finally, please learn the difference between plural and possessive. It's not that hard.


When a house is partially built, someone owns it. When the house is complete, someone still owns it, in this case a woman. It is non-sensical to say that a partially built house is the property of one, but the responsibility of a complete house somehow magically becomes the responsibility of a person who had no control over the development.


You seem unable to grasp that no one owns another human being -- or a fetus. Also, as noted, a fetus is not a child, or a person.

The fact that when someone is born, the parents are responsible for that new person, does not mean they own that person. A child is not a house.

I understand, though, that your magical-thinking, Christian patriarchal nonsense precludes you from understanding what all rational people easily understand.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 5:47 pm 

I don’t define a foetus as an unborn child. Ive consistently defined it as a biological mass. It only becomes an unborn child when it has a biological Mother and Father. Killing a biological mass has no moral repercussions. But killing a Mother or a Fathers unborn child is murder.

When a Father says my child, he’s delusional somehow?

As a Father, I will protect my child at all costs. If someone tries to terminate my child, I will terminate them first. It would be legally and morally just, due to my rights and responsibilities as a Father.

If a male can not own his child, then nor can a mother. This position is meaningless. It’s not her baby? It’s not her child? It’s not her biological mass? Who’s is it then. (Don’t say it’s the babies, that’s anti pro-choice).

The biological mass is not her body part. She’s free to do with her body as she pleases. But the biological mass has its own DNA, of which is a combination of the potential Mother and Father.
Last edited by edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 4th, 2019, 5:53 pm 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 3:19 pm wrote:1930s woman were oppressed by sexist double standard. They had no choice.

Exactly!
Men are not oppressed: they do have a choice. If one woman doesn't want to bear them a child, they're free to find one who does. Lots of men leave girlfriends and wives for that reason (and vice versa, now); lots of men have a family with one woman, then divorce, marry a younger woman and have another family. Nobody is restricting their choice. Nobody is keeping them in abusive relationships or forcing them to have sex with women they don't fancy or bear children they don't want.

And everyone agrees, that when a Mother is expectant, then the male party responsible is a Father. He doesn’t magically become a Father 9 months post incemination. During a miscarriage the Mother and Father suffer equally. This is an uncontested fact which contradicts the position you are advocating.

All of that depends on the relationship between the partners and their attitude to offspring.

Who’s choice is it to be a Father? Mutual sex means, risk getting pregnant.

Again, it depends. If one partner explicitly takes responsibility for birth control - explicitly, i.e. "It's safe, I'm on the pill." or "It's safe, I've had a vasectomy." then that person bears the responsibility for any consequences. If they agree on a method for that one occasion and it fails through the negligence of one partner, that one is more responsible. In case of a no-fault failure, it's both. If no precautions are taken, the burden of responsibility depends on the how the liaison came about - drink, drugs, force, persuasion, haste, stupidity, or whatever.

Are we unequal sexists, on this topic? The Mother isn’t dismantling her own body. If abortion is on the table that’s ok, but make it a mutual decision.

Then you'd better make it a mutual decision before the act is committed. If there is no previous agreement, the default position is that, as the party most affected, the woman decides.

You actively avoid my question on whether a Father is responsible for a pregnancy, but here you inadvertently hint at the idea that, he has no ownership at the point of pregnancy.

Neither. I explained exactly what my position is.
Culpability does not confer privilege.

But, if I am to understand your position clearly at this point, a Father has the right to avoid the risk of pregnancy pre-conception(keep it in his pants).

Or using effective birth control. Yes. Both parties always have that right - even if they are married and have agreed to procreate at some point, neither is obliged to do so at a specific sexual encounter.

During pregnancy, his rights and responsibilities are trumped and forfeit.

Hold it! What pregnancy? He has a right to get pregnant (like Loretta, in principle), but not to make anyone else pregnant.

Logically, it then follows that he has no rights and responsibilities at the time of birth, they have been forfeit. If your position does not extend to this logical truth, then please explain how I misunderstand your position.

You have two different situations here. If the woman decided to carry through the pregnancy and give birth, then it becomes a matter for negotiation. The father may then be asked to take financial responsibility - and may be compelled to do so. He can also ask for paternal privileges - and may be granted them. Once there is an actual child, its care must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I don't know what the laws in each of our countries are now - matters procreational have not concerned me for some time - but if I had to arbitrate, I would take account a great deal more than the proprietorship of 10cc of white slime.

My position holds no double standard. Rights and responsibilities remain consistent. Consistent because a male is always responsible for the product of mutual sex. As too, should be a woman. Yet, if they both agree to terminate, then rights and responsibilities are mutually null. That defines “pro-choice”.

Sounds good. I hope biology catches up with your thinking.

If I understand your position correctly, you are “pro-her dictatorship”. The Mother dictates if a man becomes a Father or not.

Wrong. A woman dictates if she becomes a mother or not. The man is free to go be a father somewhere else.

I think the misunderstanding is how we define the word Father. As I understand your position, somehow a Father is defined as only at birth.

No. If there is an agreement to procreate, the partners work out what responsibilities fall on each. If a man donates to a sperm bank, he doesn't become a father when his specimen in used. If a man has casual sex with a woman he doesn't intend to share his life with and accidentally loses control of an ejaculate, that doesn't make him a father. If he seduces or forces a girl to have sex and she gets pregnant, that doesn't make him a father. If he abandons a pregnant girlfriend, or a baby, and she marries someone else, or it's adopted by someone else, he's not a father.

Serpent. Explain how a male is not the Father during pregnancy, when clearly he is.
 

Show me which male, which female, which pregnancy, which situation, and I'll explain whether he is or isn't and why.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 6:01 pm 

Show me which male, which female, which pregnancy, which situation, and I'll explain whether he is or isn't and why.


Yes. The rest of your argument is a straw man built of various situations which change as you see fit. So let’s consider a fixed scenario of which to build on.

Scenario:

A male and female are married. They are Catholic. They both discuss, and agree that they will bear a child. She becomes pregnant, and accepts that she is a Mother, he is a Father.

At 8 months pregnant, she changes her mind. She gets an abortion without consulting the Father because it’s her body, it’s her decision.

My conclusion, a Fathers unborn child is murdered. What’s your conclusion?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby TheVat on January 4th, 2019, 6:17 pm 

Speaking of Strawman...i have heard of no place, at least in the West, where abortion takes place at eight months. That's a fully viable baby. And if it's a Catholic couple, with all the promises and implicit contracts that involves then that late term abortion scenario is even more improbable.

You are making Serpent's point here, which is that there are multiple situations that are intricately dependent on the couple, the stage of pregnancy, the contractual nature of the relationship, etc. Trying to force a broad-spectrum equivalence on all situations is unwarranted here.

You also fail to explain the reasons (surely she has them!) for the late term change of heart (and religious belief, evidently) on the mother's part.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7100
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomaxdoogles liked this post


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby doogles on January 4th, 2019, 6:32 pm 

I agree with TheVat regarding your last post Edy, and I would like to propose some other points of view.

The way I see it, this is the type of debate that parliaments would have if they were considering a law that gave biological fathers of children the right to have a say in a mothers' choice to have an abortion.

As anyone can see from the above posts, it boils down to an argument of "Yes, they have" and "No, they haven't" based on the each person's individual viewpoints. In Parliament, it would have to come down to a vote based on individual (not Party) lines. A majority vote one way or the other would determine what became law.

The net conclusion from this is that the Ethics of any situation cannot be regarded as an absolute in its own right. Ethics can be seen as the will of the majority of representatives in any given culture -- based on a democratic vote. In fact the Ethics of any given democratic culture are reflected in all of the Rules -- Bylaws and Regulations of Local Government and Acts of Parliaments.

In this particular case, let's say a law was passed that fathers have an equal say with the mother on whether she can have an abortion or not. Picture a real-life situation wherein a father insisting on his rights (perhaps religiously-influenced) denied the abortion of an early pregnancy that did not fit in with the wife's plans for her own future (regardless of the reasons).

I would have to ask -- What would be the effect on her of being forced to carry the embryo or foetus to term against her will? What would be the odds against a breakdown in the relationship? You mentioned (rightly) in an earlier post that there is oppression of one or the other if a couple disagree on an abortion. I would express the opinion (and that's all it is) that the oppression is greatest on the female in the scenario I've just presented.

A side issue -- During the 1940s, backyard abortions were rife in the area in which I was reared. Each cost about 200 Pounds which was almost an average annual wage in those days. During the second world war it was difficult to explain a pregnancy to a husband who had been overseas for more than 9 months.

My view of pregnancy is that it is often just a byproduct of a pleasant interlude between a male and a female -- the pleasant interlude being the main aim. Just to bring a bit of evidence into this thread, here's the result of one worldwide study -- see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727534/ -- " ... Eighty-five million pregnancies, representing 40 percent of all pregnancies, were unintended in 2012. Of these, 50 percent ended in abortion, 13 percent ended in miscarriage, and 38 percent resulted in an unplanned birth. ... "
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby SciameriKen on January 4th, 2019, 6:33 pm 

My thoughts on your argument edy is that pregnancy carries a risk of death that is higher than the risk of death of undergoing an abortion. Should we have the right to force somebody to risk their lives for someone else's benefit?
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1435
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 4th, 2019, 6:41 pm 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 4:47 pm wrote:When a Father says my child, he’s delusional somehow?

The word is most often used in the mutual context of belonging: She is my wife; he is my uncle, she is my sister - I am her husband, I am his nephew, I am her sister. The way you have been using is proprietary: I own him; I have a right to him. People aren't allowed to own other people anymore - not even their children.

If a male can not own his child, then nor can a mother.

That is correct.

This position is meaningless. It’s not her baby? It’s not her child?

That's right. They can feel belonging, but they cannot treat each other as property.

It’s not her biological mass?

Yes, it is.


The biological mass is not her body part. She’s free to do with her body as she pleases. But the biological mass has its own DNA, of which is a combination of the potential Mother and Father.

That would also be true of several million bacteria in her body. Also warts and tapeworms.
When a foetus becomes eligible for the protection of the state is a matter of considerable legal and moral contention that I don't want to get into here. Obviously, not before it's able to survive outside the woman's body - past the second trimester, it's a matter of opinion.
In no case, however, is it any part of the father. He lost control of that DNA, but he still has plenty more.
Once he's put in a whole lot more commitment, effort and time than an orgasm. A scattering of DNA is not a substantial enough contribution to make on claim on somebody's life.

No straw man. Every case is different.

A male and female are married. They are Catholic. They both discuss, and agree that they will bear a child. She becomes pregnant, and accepts that she is a Mother, he is a Father.

At 8 months pregnant, she changes her mind. She gets an abortion without consulting the Father because it’s her body, it’s her decision.

My conclusion, a Fathers unborn child is murdered. What’s your conclusion?

I would say she was in breach of contract, unfaithful to her marriage vows, a bad Catholic, dishonest and generally in the wrong... unless she has a compelling reason that wasn't disclosed.
I don't consider this murder, nor yet manslaughter, though it is so classified in some penal codes.
However, the ownership of the foetus is not an issue in my view: the question is whether the foetus is a person in its own right - not who claims it as their property.
That doesn't mean I'm insensitive to the husband's feelings: he has presumably put a lot of hope and anticipation into becoming a father. He made an emotional investment, maybe showered more attention on his wife than he would have just for her own sake.
Disappointment can hurt very much. But what he's lost is a figment of his own imagination - a projection: he didn't actually know that child; the child he thinks he owns doesn't exist.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 6:47 pm 

Allow me to explore this idea of no ownership. Also while considering your point that the value of life in discussion is fixed, and equal to that of bacteria. (non human)

I have a ray gun, with a setting that only kills unborn children. It disintegrates and is harmless to the expectant Mother. A modified portable version of a sergical laser.

Your position that no one owns a foetus, means I am free to use this gun, in the termination of any foetus, as I see fit. It’s not a person. It’s not a Mothers child nor is it a Fathers child. Based on your poor moralistic foundation I can walk into the maternity ward and leave this ray gun set to blast, without any moral implications. (Is this wrong?) all the born children are unharmed, but all the unborn are obliterated. What immorality has been committed, other than the termination of a fungus.

Anyone who accepts this idea of harmless killing is a mad man. The Mother and Father would have every right to demand justice for the unconcented murder of their unborn child.

The same is true with abortions.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 4th, 2019, 8:45 pm 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 5:47 pm wrote:Allow me to explore this idea of no ownership. Also while considering your point that the value of life in discussion is fixed, and equal to that of bacteria. (non human)

Oooh, you do switch tracks pretty fast! I said nothing about the value of life, which I refuse to discuss in this thread. The comparison to bacteria, tapeworms and warts is that they all inhabit the body of a human and have DNA distinct from the host's.

Your position that no one owns a foetus,

No, that was not the position I stated. What I said was, that as long as a growth is incapable of survival outside the body of the host, the host has absolute right to deal with it as she chooses.
Once a foetus attains self-sufficiency, it becomes a person with its own rights to state protection. The couple of months in between, when it might be able to survive with massive medical intervention are still under intense legal scrutiny.

means I am free to use this gun, in the termination of any foetus, as I see fit.

Nope. You still don't get any rights over another person. If the woman in whose body it grew had it removed and left it lying around in some public place, you may use your little gun on it, or take it home.

It’s not a person. It’s not a Mothers child nor is it a Fathers child. Based on your poor moralistic foundation I can walk into the maternity ward and leave this ray gun set to blast, without any moral implications. (Is this wrong?)

I'm not sure how wrong it is. I know it's silly. No hospital would let you wander around a maternity ward unsupervised, especially with a weapon.

all the born children are unharmed, but all the unborn are obliterated. What immorality has been committed, other than the termination of a fungus.

Your judgment of their worth is irrelevant. The pregnant women get to decide what each foetus is worth.

Anyone who accepts this idea of harmless killing is a mad man. The Mother and Father would have every right to demand justice for the unconcented murder of their unborn child.

You believe their objection would be that you deprived them of property. I suppose a case could be made, but I do not subscribe to that view.
I think what you did wrong was 1. Abrogating other people's right to make their own reproductive decisions, 2. violating other people's physical being, 3. causing intense emotional distress to people who had done nothing to you, 4. Deprived other people of their hopes of parenthood 5. Caused fear and distress to hospital staff and 6. On an indeterminate number of counts (babies close to delivery), caused the wrongful death of fellow citizens. Longish prison term, or 5000 hours community service in a palliative care facility.

The same is true with abortions.

So, it comes down to your bottom line. All that palaver about bereaved patriarch-wannabees was a smokescreen for the "sanctity of human life."
If that's your belief, you're welcome to it.
You're not welcome to impose it on other people.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby davidm on January 4th, 2019, 9:18 pm 

Before addressing your scenario, I would like to focus on this notion of property, which you invoked in your OP. According you to, the fetus is property.

Whose property is it? The man’s? The woman’s? Both equally? They are equal co-owners? But how can they be equal co-owners when it is the woman who must carry the fetus to term with all the risks involved, including death?

Now let’s be honest here. You think abortion is wrong. That’s fine. But if you think abortion is wrong, then your entire “property” argument is basically a red herring. The question is: If BOTH the man and the woman want the woman to have an abortion, does that make the abortion OK with you?

Now you don’t really believe that, do you? If I’m wrong, correct me. But if I’m right, your whole “property” argument is a disingenuous subterfuge. And if you DO think abortion is OK only if both parties agree to it, then you are a male supremacist — the man has the final say. Choose what you are.

Your argument has an even more devastating problem. If a fetus is property, when does it stop becoming property? When it is born? Why? What is the rationale? Is the infant property? The toddler? The tween? The teen? When does the born stop being the property of the parents? When it reaches age 18?

And if the fetus, or the son or daughter, is the property of the parents, it follows that, legally, they can do anything they want with the fetus or the child or the toddler, tween or teen. Provided they both agree, they can sell their child to a third party, they can disfigure their child, they can kill their child. You can do anything you want with your property!

Now here is what people like me think. A fetus, a child, a grown human, is never property. But a fetus is not a child and it is not a person. Personhood is something acquired after birth. And, I might add, humans are not the only persons on this planet. Dogs are persons. Cats are persons. Crows are persons. Parrots are persons. Dolphins are persons. Whales are persons. Chimps are persons. It has been shown that even ants are persons. They have individual personalities. They even pass the mirror test! I trust you do everything you can not to step on an ant?

After birth, or even before birth when a fetus becomes viable, one cannot harm the fetus/child. This is also a rebuttal to your ridiculous scenario in which there is a third-trimester abortion. That doesn’t happen. After 24 weeks, an abortion can only be conducted for medical reasons, because the baby is not viable or the mother’s life is threatened. So why did you erect this ridiculous strawman? Desperation? Or are you saying that a late-term abortion cannot be allowed even if failure to abort causes the mother to die, or the baby to be stillborn?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 9:44 pm 

TheVat » 05 Jan 2019, 11:17 wrote:Speaking of Strawman...i have heard of no place, at least in the West, where abortion takes place at eight months. That's a fully viable baby. And if it's a Catholic couple, with all the promises and implicit contracts that involves then that late term abortion scenario is even more improbable.

You are making Serpent's point here, which is that there are multiple situations that are intricately dependent on the couple, the stage of pregnancy, the contractual nature of the relationship, etc. Trying to force a broad-spectrum equivalence on all situations is unwarranted here.

You also fail to explain the reasons (surely she has them!) for the late term change of heart (and religious belief, evidently) on the mother's part.


It’s specific, in an attempt to eliminate all the straw men from both sides, to try and understand one another.

There is no point proven by science, at which an unborn baby becomes human. It’s a moral issue built by pro-dictators. It’s foundation, is the idea that a baby is not a baby until it’s born. This is not my argument, so forgive me if I misrepresent, but it is as I understand it. 1 month, 2 months or 10. It’s irrelavant unless it’s born. Correct me.

The woman in the scenario. Her reasons are non-medical. She decides she wants to worship Satan, and figures it’s a sacrifice that will please him.

Somehow, I don’t see these details affecting a pro-dictator position. Correct me.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 4th, 2019, 10:44 pm 

Davidm,

Now you don’t really believe that, do you? [abortion is ok]If I’m wrong, correct me. But if I’m right, your whole “property” argument is a disingenuous subterfuge. And if you DO think abortion is OK only if both parties agree to it, then you are a male supremacist — the man has the final say. Choose what you are.


I have my own personal view on abortion, of coarse. Even before I became Catholic, I was pro-life. I do not use the term biological mass. I use the term, my baby. If I were a dictator, I would rule out all abortions. But I understand that I am not a dictator, I am an individual with my own individual views, of which are possibly wrong. Therefore I choose to not enforce my views on others.

But I am human. As hard as I try, my bias will taint my argument on the topic of sexist equality. No secrets here. This should not exclude me as an advocate for oppressed men.

I invented the term biological mass, in an attempt to understand the necessary termination of human life. Killing a biological mass is meaningless. It is an acceptable differentiation between kill and murder. You can not murder a biological mass. This makes no sense. Another example is killing in war. Even from a Catholic standpoint, this form of killing is not murder.

The biological mass of another couple, is not my baby. It is upto both the Mother and her mutual counterpart to decide if they Consider it a baby, or a biological mass. No smoke screens and no male supremacy. Remember, my attempt here is equality, not the resuppression of woman. Although Doogles has presented some food for thought with regards to that. I’ll address it when I can.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 4th, 2019, 11:17 pm 

How does this "equality" work in practice?
Say two college students who meet at a party, are attracted to each other, have a little too much to drink and wake next morning in the same bed. They're barely acquainted, both planning professional careers and have no immediate desire to be in a committed relationship. Yet they've had unprotected sex; there is a possibility of pregnancy.

What should each of them do -
1. This morning
2. next week
3. in three months
4. next year - ?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 5th, 2019, 12:00 am 

How does this "equality" work in practice?


Excellent question. I’m stuck on a similar one.
Can males and females be considered as equal?

Say two college students who meet at a party,


Woah, woah, woah. One at a time. Of coarse there will be circumstances where a woman’s safety is priorortised. But I’m still trying to understand if a male responsible for the production of a biological mass, is allowed to call himself the Father of his child, in any circumstance, independantly of a dictatorship. Only once the rules are established, can we begin to stress test them...

Scenario:

A male and female are married. They are Catholic. They both discuss, and agree that they will bear a child. She becomes pregnant, and accepts that she is a Mother, he is a Father.

At 8 months pregnant, she changes her mind. She gets an abortion without consulting the Father because it’s her body, it’s her decision.
a baby is not a baby until it’s born...
...The woman in the scenario. Her reasons are non-medical. She decides she wants to worship Satan, and figures it’s a sacrifice that will please him.


By the standards of currently acceptable terminology, this man is not allowed to call himself a Father. Because a Father is defined as a male with the rights and responsibilities of his offspring. Here, he is not a Father. Why not, particularly when the dictator already acknowledged him as the Father.

The danger of honouring him with this title, is it now becomes murder. Why does he have no rights, and why is it generally accepted that no, he is not the Father. I can not discover an answer that does not forfeit equality, or else involve dictatorship. Help me out.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 5th, 2019, 12:59 am 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 11:00 pm wrote:Excellent question. I’m stuck on a similar one.
Can males and females be considered as equal?

Any reason they shouldn't?

Woah, woah, woah. One at a time.

One what? I described the kind of situation in which most unplanned pregnancies occur.

I've dealt with your scenario already. I do not believe it's typical or that it's even likely to have happened more than once. Even the once is a stretch for me, but I believe you're telling the truth as you know it. of course, you can't know all of it, and probably didn't tell all of what you do know. So I can't judge the situation or the participants, except in a very general way.

Not allowed? Who's stopping him? He was a father for the time he knew about the pregnancy; and isn't a father anymore, because there is no child to be the father of.
Does this story affect my view on women's rights? No.

The danger of honouring him with this title, is it now becomes murder.

If it was murder, that doesn't depend on how the father feels about it. It depends on the law. If the termination of a pregnancy is considered a crime, the feelings of other people make no difference to the charges the woman might face.

Why does he have no rights,

He has lots of rights. He can call himself anything he likes.
Can he sue his wife? Maybe. Can he divorce her? Of course. Should he get counselling? Definitely.

and why is it generally accepted that no, he is not the Father.

We've been assuming that it was his sperm, but we don't know it for a fact. While the pregnancy lasted, I suppose he was considered the father of that unborn baby; now that there is no baby, he isn't the father of anybody.
I don't see why throwing that word is so important to you. It changes nothing.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 5th, 2019, 2:59 am 

Can males and females be considered as equal?

Any reason they shouldn't?


Because our Catholic male friend in the scenario has an unequal authority, on their mutually verbal contract of procreation. For no reason other than sexist inequality. I’m not saying it’s a real scenario. I’m asking, at which point can we say a male has an equal authority. If the answer is at no point, then the scales of equality are tipped.

If it was murder, that doesn't depend on how the father feels about it. It depends on the law.

I’m not asking for a unified law. That depends on each state. In Nazi Germany it was legal to kill a Jew. During American colonisation, it was legal to kill Indians and Africans. All of them were born human beings. When the British colonised my country, it was legal to murder Maori. I don’t accept current law as a good moral foundation. Killing live Jews, Indians, Africans, Aboriginy and Maori is most definitely murder. As is killing live children.

The position you advocate, provides no safe guards for the termination of a biological mass against a Mothers will. On the topic of law, consider the One-Child policy responsible for more than 400million terminations. Just because it’s legal, it is not morally just. On the topic of non evasive sergical lasers, there is no crime in a forced termination at the will of the Father (Operating while the Mother sleeps).

We've been assuming that it was his sperm, but we don't know it for a fact. While the pregnancy lasted, I suppose he was considered the father of that unborn baby; now that there is no baby, he isn't the father of anybody.


It’s easy to include this in the scenario. The Mother comes forward as an adulteress. Now we have a potential for three Fathers. How do we know who is the Father? A DNA test. Well at least we could, if we admit that DNA is relevant.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 5th, 2019, 3:24 am 

Pro-choice advocates typically focus on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus. They tend to support policies that do not confer rights or personhood status upon a fetus. Such advocates focus on enhancing penalties for an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the victim.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fet ... -laws.aspx

Another example of having your cake and eating it too.

Equality according to sexist equality means, assaulting a pregnant Mother is equal to assaulting a male with a tumour. But pro-dictators don’t ask for equality here either. Instead they present an alternative formulae of which allows me to quantify the value of an unborn biological mass, according to pro-choice standards.

The formulae should read..
Assault (female+BM) = assault (male+T)

BM = Biological mass
T = tumour

If both BM and T are equal to bacteria, then BM = T

Here we have sexist equality and consistency. However, this is not what pro-choice advocates, according to the general consensus in the link. What’s proposed instead is as follows..

Assault (female+BM) > assault (male+T)

Notice the > . There is an imbalance. If female = male, then the discrepancy is with BM and T. From this I may deduce, BM holds more value than T.

Whether you choose to quantify the value of Biological Mass or not is irrelevant. According to pro-choicers view on ssaulting an expectant Mother, biological mass has a quantifiable value greater than tumours, bacteria and random DNA.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Next

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests