Controversial topic - You have been warned
- Thread starter treide
- Start date
Kleenex is responsible for the wiping out of entire civilisations.
Seriously, if the unborn child does not survive a life saving act taken on the carrying mother is that an abortion? ie: if mother has heart attack and needs to be zapped and unborn does not survive. What is this?
I don\'t think this is abortion... and if this isn\'t, nor is any other operation that would prevent severe injury or damage to the mother at the cost of the unborn child.
Does the legislation say what an abortion is or what procedures constitute having an abortion? I am unclear on the whole thing.
Seriously, if the unborn child does not survive a life saving act taken on the carrying mother is that an abortion? ie: if mother has heart attack and needs to be zapped and unborn does not survive. What is this?
I don\'t think this is abortion... and if this isn\'t, nor is any other operation that would prevent severe injury or damage to the mother at the cost of the unborn child.
Does the legislation say what an abortion is or what procedures constitute having an abortion? I am unclear on the whole thing.
vincegamer
Active member
I believe this litigation was over a specific method of performing abortion.
The philosophical underpinnings of course are if this method, then why not any other method.
Tallion,
First off, \"should\" is not the question. Lots of things are legal that we say should not happen.
Absolutely the provider of 1/2 the genetic material should have some say.
Does he? Theoretically, no.
However, I don\'t know of any cases that have tested the rights of the father.
Just as the state can justify interfering by saying at some point its interests outweigh the privacy interests of the mother, then the father\'s interests should be considered having some weight, though possibly they would never outweigh those of the mother.
The philosophical underpinnings of course are if this method, then why not any other method.
Tallion,
First off, \"should\" is not the question. Lots of things are legal that we say should not happen.
Absolutely the provider of 1/2 the genetic material should have some say.
Does he? Theoretically, no.
However, I don\'t know of any cases that have tested the rights of the father.
Just as the state can justify interfering by saying at some point its interests outweigh the privacy interests of the mother, then the father\'s interests should be considered having some weight, though possibly they would never outweigh those of the mother.
Meh, if you cannot do make the difference between a foetus and a children, that\'s your failing 
The father as a say in the process, in fact he can pretty much say what he wants, in many cases the women will consider it. But the final decision is her\'s and that\'s the way it should be. I really cannot grasp the selfishness of the fathers who think there is something to claim while it\'s the woman who does all the work, before, and quite often, after birth. Man are secondary players in procreation, and in many cases it\'s a good thing.
The father as a say in the process, in fact he can pretty much say what he wants, in many cases the women will consider it. But the final decision is her\'s and that\'s the way it should be. I really cannot grasp the selfishness of the fathers who think there is something to claim while it\'s the woman who does all the work, before, and quite often, after birth. Man are secondary players in procreation, and in many cases it\'s a good thing.
Talion
New member
Originally posted by GreenOne
Meh, if you cannot do make the difference between a foetus and a children, that\'s your failing
The father as a say in the process, in fact he can pretty much say what he wants, in many cases the women will consider it. But the final decision is her\'s and that\'s the way it should be. I really cannot grasp the selfishness of the fathers who think there is something to claim while it\'s the woman who does all the work, before, and quite often, after birth. Man are secondary players in procreation, and in many cases it\'s a good thing.
The only flaw in that logic is that, the man has no say if the woman should keep the child or not, but if she has a child that he fathered and she keeps it..........he\'s forced to then help pay for it.
A little one sided if you ask me........using your logic, the mother does all the work if she decides to keep, then the father should pay nothing for it....if he didn\'t want it.
vincegamer
Active member
absurdities don\'t prove points though.
They are red herrings, or more specifically, the Slippery Slope falacy.
Talion,
GreenOne\'s position appears to be that a man should not be able to prevent an abortion because doing so creates a burden on the woman. A man attempting to do so presumably is accepting of the cost he will face.
You then opposed by saying a man should be able to compel an abortion if he\'s to be saddled with the cost. It\'s just not the same thing so your opposition doesn\'t work. It\'s a straw man.
They are red herrings, or more specifically, the Slippery Slope falacy.
Talion,
GreenOne\'s position appears to be that a man should not be able to prevent an abortion because doing so creates a burden on the woman. A man attempting to do so presumably is accepting of the cost he will face.
You then opposed by saying a man should be able to compel an abortion if he\'s to be saddled with the cost. It\'s just not the same thing so your opposition doesn\'t work. It\'s a straw man.
I see your point...but I have to disagree...Being absurd sometimes lets you get to the meat of the matter, and cuts away all the extra fat. I don\'t think it can be used to win an argument, but to prove a point I think its very valid.
But, the risk of course, is that it is so absurd that all ones other points are then dismissed out of hand.
Talion
New member
Maybe I\'m lost but.
Greenone\'s saying - A man has no right to stop a woman from having an abortion, if he wants to keep the baby....Yes. So she gets rid of a child he\'s willing to bring up. And that\'s ok?
So a man also has no right to prevent a woman from giving birth to a child. Yet is laid with a burden he didn\'t want. And that\'s ok too?
So the man - should just suffer the consequences of the womans decision. Either way........and that\'s ok???
or am i compleley reading what he said wrong.
vincegamer
Active member
Jim,
I think you are mistaken.
Being absurd is a scare tactic designed to take focus off the question at hand by redirecting it to something generally repulsive.
It may serve to highlight a different issue that the speaker finds more important (like questioning the underlying definition of \"child\" or \"life\") but doesn\'t prove anything.
Think of Justice Scalia\'s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
The SCOTUS found a Texas law that criminalized sexual acts between same-sex adults in the privacy of their homes to be unconstitutional.
Scalia responded by saying, well now bestiality must be permissible.
Sure, the question of whether or not we can use concepts of morality to make laws is significant, but bestiality and gay sex aren\'t the same thing, and by connecting them, Scalia has suggested that gays are animals.
Talion,
there are 2 sides. This argument assumes the man and woman do not agree.
A. If a man wants a woman to carry the baby to term, should he be able to require her to do so?
B. If a man wants a woman to have an abortion, should he be able to require her to do so?
There is no room for compromise. The man cannot carry the baby half the time, nor can he avoid the financial responsibility if she keeps the baby.
They are not exclusive though.
You could say yes to A and no to B.
So, arguing that A should be so can’t be defeated by arguing that B should be so (or should not be so).
I think you are mistaken.
Being absurd is a scare tactic designed to take focus off the question at hand by redirecting it to something generally repulsive.
It may serve to highlight a different issue that the speaker finds more important (like questioning the underlying definition of \"child\" or \"life\") but doesn\'t prove anything.
Think of Justice Scalia\'s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
The SCOTUS found a Texas law that criminalized sexual acts between same-sex adults in the privacy of their homes to be unconstitutional.
Scalia responded by saying, well now bestiality must be permissible.
Sure, the question of whether or not we can use concepts of morality to make laws is significant, but bestiality and gay sex aren\'t the same thing, and by connecting them, Scalia has suggested that gays are animals.
Talion,
there are 2 sides. This argument assumes the man and woman do not agree.
A. If a man wants a woman to carry the baby to term, should he be able to require her to do so?
B. If a man wants a woman to have an abortion, should he be able to require her to do so?
There is no room for compromise. The man cannot carry the baby half the time, nor can he avoid the financial responsibility if she keeps the baby.
They are not exclusive though.
You could say yes to A and no to B.
So, arguing that A should be so can’t be defeated by arguing that B should be so (or should not be so).
That\'s pushing my position to the extreme, but in the worsts cases it\'s something like that.
But lets say in most cases the decision will come from an agreement reached by the two parents in correctly weighting the pro and cons of parenting in the current situation they\'re facing. In cases when the judgement is flawed,
hard to judge from the outside really, I think it comes to lesser consequences when the choice is not to have the child.
As for the straw man thing, not sure if I get the concept right, but that\'s not my view.
I personally believe in both genders being adequatelly empowered in their respective field of competence, inside a matriarchal society.
Goes without saying, this is not the topic and something that we\'ll doubtfully ever see.
But lets say in most cases the decision will come from an agreement reached by the two parents in correctly weighting the pro and cons of parenting in the current situation they\'re facing. In cases when the judgement is flawed,
hard to judge from the outside really, I think it comes to lesser consequences when the choice is not to have the child.
As for the straw man thing, not sure if I get the concept right, but that\'s not my view.
I personally believe in both genders being adequatelly empowered in their respective field of competence, inside a matriarchal society.
Goes without saying, this is not the topic and something that we\'ll doubtfully ever see.
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
:beer: drink? anyone :beer:
Please, enlighten us.Originally posted by GreenOne
Meh, if you cannot do make the difference between a foetus and a children, that\'s your failing
When is the exact moment a fetus becomes a child?
When is the exact moment that consiousness/sentience comes into being?
Science can\'t even answer that.
In your opinion is it the first trimester? The second? The third? The moment of birth?
If at Birth, how do you explain premature babies that grow to be healthy adults?
By your example, premies aren\'t children, just clumps of cells.
We could place the line at pre-born and new-born like I said previously and it would be a pretty logical call.
This discussion is going in circle
In fact, the line could be placed a bit later, but who would want to go actually killing babies...
Where ever did you find that idea... from the moment it\'s delivered, if it\'s alive, it\'s a new-born child. I am not saying it\'s a good thing to kill all the premature, or unhealthy child...
It\'s a bit tiresome that I cannot say anything without my point behing stretched to the extreme
This discussion is going in circle
In fact, the line could be placed a bit later, but who would want to go actually killing babies...
Where ever did you find that idea... from the moment it\'s delivered, if it\'s alive, it\'s a new-born child. I am not saying it\'s a good thing to kill all the premature, or unhealthy child...
It\'s a bit tiresome that I cannot say anything without my point behing stretched to the extreme
funnymouth
Active member
not entirely true. as far as i recall, if a man states in no uncertain terms that he does not desire to have a child, and that he will not financially support one prior to coitus and accedental pregnancy, and he can prove it, he is not obliged to support it.
i could be wrong, but either way, its very unlikely. pesonally i have no problem with women haveing \"the power\" in that regard. if you want to to \"pump her for information\" you\'d better be ready for the consequences. the reproductive act is never something to be taken lightly (whatever happened to accountability?). as a counter point, however, accidents do happen.
i think some of you are missing the trees for the forest. women dont casually have abortions, or have any desire to use them as birth controll. it is not a plesant thing, it is hard on an individuall, both mentally and physically. even the abortive pill is dangerous. its a serious medical prcedure. each instance is unique, and life these days is very complicated.
honestly i dont really see the significance of of whatever changes have been made either, and the \"if this aspect of it can be regulated, what about everything\" nonsence, abortion is already HIGHLY regulated by quaified individuals (in most places), who are both concerned with the health of the parent, and ethical of the fetus (in most cases.
my personal stance on when abortion should and shouldnt be legal is based on autonomy and development. if the child could survive outside of the mother, it should not be aborted. advanced (higher) brain functions should also be considered (more restrictive). IMHO a woman has the right to choose, but in a timely manner. within the first trimester of pregnancy, she should be aware of it, and make a decision. as soon as the fetus aquires significant cognitive faculties, it shouldnt be legal, barring unusual medical circumstance (deformations, life threataning medical risk to the parent), and which point its triage, and sacrifices must be made. the needs of the mother should be considered primary (without her here could be no child, after all). my 2 cents.
Of course, a completely arbitrary decision, based on what you feel, but with nothing really backing it up.Originally posted by GreenOne
We could place the line at pre-born and new-born like I said previously and it would be a pretty logical call.
This discussion is going in circle
In fact, the line could be placed a bit later, but who would want to go actually killing babies...
The fact that premies exist on a regular basis and survive blows the whole pre-born/new-born paradigm out of the water.
Yes, of course, completely arbitrary, unlike the people that are about to decide of the fate of actual, living womens...
Beside the verbal slights of hand, misinterpretations, term-abuse and name calling fiesta, I really don\'t see where this is proper conversation.
Beside the verbal slights of hand, misinterpretations, term-abuse and name calling fiesta, I really don\'t see where this is proper conversation.
