The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Enteebee]

Nolan's point was that the woman has the option to choose abortion. The man has no such right. So if the woman has the baby even though the man wants it aborted, she has made that decision of her own volition and thus should assume full financial responsibility.

Ok sure thing, seems unfair that someone can choose to have a kid and then whinge that it costs too much, but let's look at the problems:

- Some women may not want abortions but they never wanted the child either.
- If a woman cannot afford to look after this child (to a level we're satisfied with) then you'll either have to give her some assistance or take her child away (either way it's costing us money).
- It means men are never responsible, they have unprotected sex... if she gets pregnant 'get an abortion', they have no repercussions for whatever they do other than that the girl might not let them sleep with them. Are you ok with that?

The taxpayers wouldn't bare the full cost. Only of those that can't support themselves. Many middle class and wealthy men are paying large proportions of their income in child support, well beyond what is actually required to support a child.

Fair enough it probably is a bit of a rort that some men have to pay huge fees for these children. But consider that perhaps a girl didn't want to get pregnant, a guy gets her pregnant, but she never wanted to get an abortion either... you're then basically saying although she bears as much/less responsibility than the guy, she should be left with the full financial burden because she won't take the kid. That seems unfair to me, the guy in that situation should be forced to contribute to that kid's life that he bears more responsibility for creating than the woman.

In the situations where taxpayers are forced to pay a bit of money to support the child and not the father, is this fair in your opinion?

There are unfair situations and perhaps the numbers could be tweaked, but I'd be willing to argue society is much better off as a whole having men take some responsibility for the kids they have.

 

[foram]

Thesis: Abortion should be illegal.
Clarifications: Exceptions can be made in cases where either the pregnant woman was raped, or her life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy. Any intentional termination of a pregnancy after conception is an abortion.

Argument:​

1) It is always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.​

​

(premise)​

2) A human being is any living thing whose genetic code is distinctly human.​

​

(premise)​

3) A fetus is a living thing.​

​

(premise)​

4) A fetus has a distinctly human genetic code.​

​

(premise)​

5) A fetus is a human being.​

​

(2,3,4)​

6) Any human being who has not intentionally violated the rights of another person is innocent.​

​

(premise)​

7) A fetus has not intentionally violated the rights of another person.​

​

(premise)​

8) A fetus is innocent.​

​

(5,6,7)​

9) An abortion is, by stipulation, the intentional act of killing a fetus.​

​

(premise)​

10) Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.​

​

(5,8,9)​

11) Abortion is morally wrong.​

​

(1,10)​

12) All morally wrong actions should be illegal.​

​

(premise)​

13) Abortion should be illegal.​

​

(11,12)​

 

[Enteebee]

1) It is always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
(premise)

2) It is always morally wrong to make laws regulating what someone can't do with their own body.

C: Mindfuck.

 

[Enteebee]

Yes but they still have a choice. Sure it may be a difficult choice, but they are in a position to weigh the costs and benefits and decide. The man has no such luxury.

The man had a choice before hand, you can say "accidents can happen" but I'm willing to bet there were things they could have done which would have inconvenienced them a whole lot less to ensure they never got her pregnant.

It's fairer to distribute the cost amongst all taxpayer than to place the burden all on one individual who has no intention of being in that situation.

No intention? I don't really care about that, I care about responsibility... and I'd argue if one individual holds more responsibility for something than the rest of society then that individual should definately be held to account at least somewhat.

Yes I'm ok with it. Why do you feel a need to impose "repercussions" on people for having unprotexcted sex? The only reason to discourage it is to prevent the spread of STD's, and the risk on that is punishment enough in itself.

To help prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Yes. Thats how all welfare works. All taxpayers support those who cannot support themselves. If you have a broad objection to welfare, thats really beyond the scope of this argument. But my proposal is certainly consistent with the current approach to welfare.

I have no problem with welfare, but I don't think it should be used to annul responsibility on the behalf of the individual.

What benefits does it produce? If you're imply it makes men more responsibile i think thats a long bow to draw. I doubt many men are thinking about possibile future financial repucussions when they're about to have sex. Most aren't thinking straight about anything at all.

The main worry I ever hear from guys about having sex is that they're scared 'da bitch is gunna taek my money', they need to be cautious in some way. As for during, of course a lot of guys won't be thinking straight, but it should at least get them to carry condoms on them or whatever beforehand.

Other benefits include children being invested in by their parents to become more productive members of society and women not having the sole burden in raising a child (even if they only recieve financial support) .


In conclusion:
It really does seem quite odd that you'll excuse male responsibility when it comes to wearing protection et al but want to force women to have abortions else they have to bear the responsibility.

 

[Ennaybur]

lol dude, sex has a baby clause in it.
You go around that by using protection. You can't just pretend like it's doesn't lead to that just because you don't want it to. If you don't want a baby then use protection or don't have sex.

edit: re dom

 

[Iron]

Being a dickhead doesnt seem to be a choice for you, but you pressumably have one and therefore should bare all responsibility for being one

 

[Iron]

That is exactly what you were saying, unless you can also give birth?

Edit: in which case, ill step up my criticism by calling you a cunt

 

[Enteebee]

The point is, thanks to abortion the "baby clause" can be removed. Almost every pregnancy contains a peroid where the woman can choose to terminate. At that stage, protection becomes irrelevent. The past mistake of not using contraception may have been mutual, but it becomes irrelevent because there is a solution available that renders it unecessary.Giving birth is a choice. It is totally the womans choice and therefore she should bare the responsibility of that choice.

I really can't see how we can say women must get an abortion or accept the responsibility yet you're not willing to concede that men must wear protection or bear the responsibility... Sure there might be cases where it's been tampered with or it broke that we can honestly say "ok, guy tried he best", but if a guy had sex with her without a condom and she got pregnant he holds equal responsibility with her.

AFAIK the reason most people believe abortion is moral has to do with the right of the mother to her body and nothing to do with the freedom to annul yourself of the responsibility because you don't like it, though that is a necessary side-effect sometimes.

 

[Enteebee]

That would be the case if abortion wasn't an option. But since it is, this second option nullifies all past mistakes because they can easily be avoided with an abortion.

Why does abortion being an option change things? So the woman gets 2 chances not to have a baby she wants and the guy only gets one... the fact remains that the guy had his chance. If it wasn't a matter of the woman having a right to control over her body I (and I imagine many others) wouldn't find it ethical to abort the child and the woman wouldn't get her second chance (the baby isn't inside the male, thus he doesn't get that second chance).

"Most people" are wrong. I don't think you can separate the two. It is impossible to give mothers an unfettered right to have freedom over her body without also granting her the right to annul herself of responsibility for any pregnacy she may not like.

Yes it's impossible to separate the two, but the point is that just because it's a necessary result of our desired outcome doesn't mean we then have to extend that result across the board even in situations where it does not meet our desired outcome.

I don't believe it's amoral to abort because its inconvinient for the mother. If the mother has issues with abortion and decideds to keep a baby she didn't really want, I believe her views about abortion are her own personal hang up and thus she should stil bare responsibility for her decision.

I think it's immoral to abort for convenience but if in doing so you are excercising your rights over your body then it is something that has to be allowed, in cases where such a right does not exist I'd argue you should not be allowed to abort for convenience. We don't give other interested parties ( parents of underaged teens etc) the right to abort even though the child is likely to inconvenience them because they don't have that superseding right to their body. Before you respond with that they can just remove their responsibility which is what you're asking for a father to be allowed to do, please consider that even in the case of the mother she can potentially give birth to the child and then remove all financial burden, so that is not our reason for allowing a woman to have an abortion.

It seems to me therefore that you need to explain why you believe a woman can get an abortion, if it would be moral out of convenience then why can't other interested parties demand an abortion? Surely their potential inconvenience can be as great as the mothers (given that she can also give the child away, though she does need to have a pregnancy) yet I truly doubt anyone would ever allow such a right to exist -- This is because the key is the womans right to her body.

 

[Enteebee]

The first choice the man and the woman make is nullified by the second choice that only the woman can make. So the second choice is the most relevent choice in determining who bares responsibility.

The man had the choice to yield or not yield choice to the woman, by choosing to have sex with her and give her the baby, in knowing that she has a right to her body, he yielded his choice to her. A man in having sex with a woman is giving her the right to control over the fate of his 'child' and the right to potentially burden him by continuing on with the child.

Your examples are totally irrelevent. They both involve third parties impinging on individuals rights. This is exactly what im arguing against by saying women should not be able to choose to impose a financial responsibility on men against their will.

I don't see how a mother who has to look after her 14 year old child's child is any less having her individual rights impinged on her than if she were to force her child to have an abortion, but for the right to control of your body... That is to say that both parties are having their 'individual rights' impinged on, but one of them has a more important individual right than the other.

 

[Enteebee]

As I have pointed out, due to flaws in contraceptive devices it is not always a choice.

and in such situations I have sympathy, how often (truly) do you believe this is the case?

Your company example breaks down because in the example you have authorised a person to excersise control, in this situation you didn't consent to the authorisation as an individual, the authorisation is created by laws which you have no control over.

I disagree. I believe that implicit in having sex with a woman is the authorisation for them to excercise control over your child as a necessary result of their having a right to their body, so you already made the choice to give them that second
choice and that's the only reason it exists. Perhaps unfortunately for you any right 'not to be burdened by a child' has already been relinquished imo, as would hers if she didn't have the right to an abortion because she has a right to her body.

But I can see how if you believe abortions should be okay on the basis of convenience you can somewhat get around that, but imo it's much shakier moral ground.

Truly my main reasons for being against it are less on the basis of principle and more on the basis of utilitarian considerations of what is best for the population... IMO overall we're better off having fathers contributing to the lives of their unwanted children than if we had welfare/single mums doing it all.

 

[Enteebee]

Im saying that it is also a necessary implication of them having that choice that they should bare responsibility for that choice. You still seem to be focused on this "but for the existence of abortions" reasoning. Why should we create policy as though abortions aren't available when in fact they are?

It's not that we create it although abortions aren't available, it's just that we need to accept the special circumstances which give rise to a woman's right to continue with the birth of the child and make the decision for the man. It is my opinion that a man gives up the choice to not have the child when he has sex with the woman and it is then her choice to decide for both of them. If she decides to go through with it he has to look after it.

Why is it "shaky?" If you accept that a fetus isn't a human life and that it can be terminated to help the mother, where do you draw the line? Who are we to say what is and isn't a valid reason.? If anything i think it is shaky to impose our own views on a woman of when it is and isn't acceptable.

If you apply it to other scenarios, such as teen mum's and their parents... I'm not going to impose my view on what is or is not acceptable, for me it's a moot point once we recognise her right to do what she wishes with her body.

No. If you're focusing on the total utility, it is the same. Either the support is provided by the taxpayers or one individual. The same amount still has to come from somewhere to support the child.

Well I suppose there's a hidden premise there that in most cases children will recieve greater benefit from their biological father because he is seen to have more responsibility to that child than society at large. Welfare is normally just to bring children up to what we deem an acceptable standard, I feel it's just to ask a father who has more to give more to his own son as he has a responsibility to them.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

It's a personal choice. Not a political debate.

 

[zstar]

I disagree with the notion that it's a personal choice.

Some feminists push this agenda to escape responsibility. When you have a life inside of you then it is no longer your personal choice. There's another human being and what about his/her choice?

A fetus is still a living thing and so killing it is murder.

It is baby killing.

 

[*TRUE*]

How old is a fetus when it becomes a baby?

 

[Born2baplacebo]

Nine months in the womb retard. Fetus is considered the second stage of pregancy right?

 

[*TRUE*]

Nine months in the womb retard. Fetus is considered the second stage of pregancy right?

Beg pardon:
I wasnt meaning to ask how long a fetus/baby is in utero.
I wanted to know at what point in 'fetus'development it is deemed unacceptable to 'terminate' (abort) So i guess when the fetus is thought of in more human terms.

 

[Salchow]

Around 3 months...?! The end of the embryonic stage.

Ovum or Germinal Stage, Embryonic Stage, Fetal Stage...but they're all stages of pregnancy and thus the woman's carrying a growing baby.

If you're non-religious then this may just be a political or moral debate for you but if you are, then it's more. I'm personally against abortion but I know I would do it if it happens before my time.

Yes, this topic requires public awareness, but don't force people into a uniform 'solution'. Everyone's circumstances are different, so are their teachings and morals. It's ultimately a personal choice.

Please do not judge someone based on their decisions alone.

 

[*TRUE*]

Around 3 months...?! The end of the embryonic stage.

Ovum or Germinal Stage, Embryonic Stage, Fetal Stage...but they're all stages of pregnancy and thus the woman's carrying a growing baby.

If you're non-religious then this may just be a political or moral debate for you but if you are, then it's more. I'm personally against abortion but I know I would do it if it happens before my time.

Yes, this topic requires public awareness, but don't force people into a uniform 'solution'. Everyone's circumstances are different, so are their teachings and morals. It's ultimately a personal choice.

Please do not judge someone based on their decisions alone.

the big question to me is whether is affects one person or two.................
I am not about judging people

 

[Salchow]

I know...

but in my opinion, it does affect two, just because someone cannot speak doesn't mean they don't know about it all.

I just meant that...well, respect people's choices and beliefs, yeah?!...whether they think it's one or two.