Abortion(do guys have a say?)

[Tekania]

If all abortions can be justified in an ethical manner, then therefor all abortions are ethical,

No, something being always "ethically justifiable" does not mean mean all abortions are ethical.

which is why I said it is like saying it is unethical to not have an abortion.

Which is also "like" completely wrong, logically speaking, as it is in no way "like" saying that at all. All it is saying is that the procedure of abortion itself is capable of always have ethical justification, that is, there is always available a priori reasoning to justify it available, but this does not mean all reasons are justification for it, and that not doing it is therefore unethical. You're jumping to a conclusion which is not logical in the sequence.

I am just pointing out the extreme side his point leads to.

No, you're attempting to (poorly so) engage in a strawman tactic.

And I can't tell from what you said if you agree with him but I think so. So I will say not all abortions can be ethically justified, many happen because the mother just doesn't want a baby at that time, which is in no way ethically justifiable.

I agree with him 100%, because his reasoning is completely sound. And no, all abortions cannot be ethically justified, even when they are always ethically justifiable. The reasons behind it always play a part, it's merely there is a key reasoning which is always available, and thus may be used any time making the procedure always ethically justifiable.

[Dyakovo]

So... A woman is not a person?

What? You are seriously confusing me, how did you get that?
I'm asking how does stealing someones kidney being wrong connect to abortions being ok.

Also, you said "If I need a kidney transplant, do I have the right to just take one of yours? No, of course not."
So how would you reply if I gave the hypothetical situation:
If I am a very poor pregnant woman who cannot afford to raise a child, do I have the right to just deny that child life?
I would say not, how would you respond? Is a foetus not a person?

You're a person. I don't get to use your body against your will.
According to you a woman's body can and should be used against her will.
Ergo, you don't actually think women are people.

[Galloism]

That party being "putative fathers." Mothers have the option of walking away from the whole thing at or after birth as well, an option which is largely only theoretically available to fathers, in practice available to fathers only with a measure of the mothers' cooperation.

It is only putative fathers who are in the unique position of being unable to choose whether or not to be legally bound to the obligations of parenthood; thus, only they are held liable. Mothers enter into liability only after several opportunities to choose to avoid it, and thus cannot be said to be held liable by an external force as fathers are.

Of course, if that's not what you meant by a single party being held liable, then you were flatly, baldly, and plainly wrong, as the only possible interpretation of your statement that is not counterfactual has been described above.

Wrong. During the pregnancy only the woman is "held responsible".

Only if paternity is established and the child is not abandoned at a safe haven or adopted in such a manner as to duck the issue of paternity.

You do realize that the examples you just gave are examples of neither biological parent being held financially responsible, yes? If none of those happen both of them are held financially responsible.

You don't see a problem with the de facto situation where the legal rights and responsibilities of both parties are determined 100% by the mother without the father's input or consent?

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about what happens after birth.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong. During the pregnancy only the woman is "held responsible".

You do realize that the examples you just gave are examples of neither biological parent being held financially responsible, yes? If none of those happen both of them are held financially responsible.

You don't see a problem with the de facto situation where the legal rights and responsibilities of both parties are determined 100% by the mother without the father's input or consent?

They're not. End of story.

[Ookawauso]

If all abortions can be justified in an ethical manner, then therefor all abortions are ethical, which is why I said it is like saying it is unethical to not have an abortion.

No, it's not like saying that at all. Just because option "A" is ethical does not mean option "B" is unethical.

I am just pointing out the extreme side his point leads to.

No, you're building a strawman.

And I can't tell from what you said if you agree with him but I think so. So I will say not all abortions can be ethically justified, many happen because the mother just doesn't want a baby at that time, which is in no way ethically justifiable.

They're still ethical then. A woman is not an incubator for you to use as you wish.

Yes, if A is ethical, then that does not always mean the reverse is unethical, but I was saying in an extreme view if abortion is ethical then not aborting is unethical. It's not my view but I'm sure some would beleive it.

A woman is not an incubator for you to use as you wish

A baby is not a toy you can just return.

[Dyakovo]

No, it's not like saying that at all. Just because option "A" is ethical does not mean option "B" is unethical.

No, you're building a strawman.

They're still ethical then. A woman is not an incubator for you to use as you wish.

Yes, if A is ethical, then that does not always mean the reverse is unethical, but I was saying in an extreme view if abortion is ethical then not aborting is unethical. It's not my view but I'm sure some would beleive it.

They would be wrong.

A woman is not an incubator for you to use as you wish

A baby is not a toy you can just return.

So? A foetus/embryo is not a baby.

Edit: And even if it was it still wouldn't have the 'right' to use the woman's body against her will.

[Bingeaudangeoizie]

We, the People of Bingeaudangeoizie, have agreed to legalize abortions, but records have shown that the practice is becoming obsolete with the distribution and application of functional contraceptives.

[GeneralHaNor]

You don't see a problem with the de facto situation where the legal rights and responsibilities of both parties are determined 100% by the mother without the father's input or consent?

They're not. End of story.

Um, don't know what world you live in. But if a women decides to keep, the man if fucked. and there is no legal way out of that
Party B is completely at Party A's Mercy.

[Ookawauso]

If all abortions can be justified in an ethical manner, then therefor all abortions are ethical,

No, something being always "ethically justifiable" does not mean mean all abortions are ethical.

which is why I said it is like saying it is unethical to not have an abortion.

Which is also "like" completely wrong, logically speaking, as it is in no way "like" saying that at all. All it is saying is that the procedure of abortion itself is capable of always have ethical justification, that is, there is always available a priori reasoning to justify it available, but this does not mean all reasons are justification for it, and that not doing it is therefore unethical. You're jumping to a conclusion which is not logical in the sequence.

I am just pointing out the extreme side his point leads to.

No, you're attempting to (poorly so) engage in a strawman tactic.

And I can't tell from what you said if you agree with him but I think so. So I will say not all abortions can be ethically justified, many happen because the mother just doesn't want a baby at that time, which is in no way ethically justifiable.

I agree with him 100%, because his reasoning is completely sound. And no, all abortions cannot be ethically justified, even when they are always ethically justifiable. The reasons behind it always play a part, it's merely there is a key reasoning which is always available, and thus may be used any time making the procedure always ethically justifiable.

I don't know what strwman is soor, please explain?
And now your confusing me:

all abortions cannot be ethically justified, even when they are always ethically justifiable

Is it just me or is that an oxymoron?

[Erinkita]

We, the People of Bingeaudangeoizie, have agreed to legalize abortions, but records have shown that the practice is becoming obsolete with the distribution and application of functional contraceptives.

General is out of character. Post as yourself, not your nation.

I don't know what strwman is soor, please explain?

Constructing an argument that your opponent never made, claiming they did, and then arguing against it.
In this case, Dyakovo never claimed not aborting was unethical and you were trying to make it look as though he did.

[Dyakovo]

We, the People of Bingeaudangeoizie, have agreed to legalize abortions, but records have shown that the practice is becoming obsolete with the distribution and application of functional contraceptives.

NSG is an OOC forum. We don't give a fuck about your make-believe nation here.

[Grey tunnel]

Nobody has the right to murder their baby.There is no reason that makes that act acceptable.

[Dyakovo]

I don't know what strwman is soor, please explain?

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.

[Erinkita]

Nobody has the right to murder their baby.There is no reason that makes that act acceptable.

I agree. But we're talking about abortion, not infanticide. If you look them up, you'll find they're actually two completely different things.

[Dyakovo]

Nobody has the right to murder their baby.There is no reason that makes that act acceptable.

Abortion is not murder and a foetus, embryo, or zygote is not a baby.

[Ookawauso]

What? You are seriously confusing me, how did you get that?
I'm asking how does stealing someones kidney being wrong connect to abortions being ok.

Also, you said "If I need a kidney transplant, do I have the right to just take one of yours? No, of course not."
So how would you reply if I gave the hypothetical situation:
If I am a very poor pregnant woman who cannot afford to raise a child, do I have the right to just deny that child life?
I would say not, how would you respond? Is a foetus not a person?

You're a person. I don't get to use your body against your will.
According to you a woman's body can and should be used against her will.
Ergo, you don't actually think women are people.

I never said that we should be forcing women to have children, I beleive that if a woman becomes pregnant then it is her responsibility to care for the foetus. If she did not want a child she should have been more carful (and I'm not saying the father is blameless either).
I could just as easily say something like:
According to you a person who cannot defend themselves, or cannot speak up for themselves is not a person so we can just kill them at our leisure.
But I know, or at least assume, that this statemeant about you is false so could you please refrain from labling me with such statemeants, thank you.

[Dyakovo]

You're a person. I don't get to use your body against your will.
According to you a woman's body can and should be used against her will.
Ergo, you don't actually think women are people.

I never said that we should be forcing women to have children, I beleive that if a woman becomes pregnant then it is her responsibility to care for the foetus. If she did not want a child she should have been more carful (and I'm not saying the father is blameless either).¹
I could just as easily say something like:
According to you a person who cannot defend themselves, or cannot speak up for themselves is not a person so we can just kill them at our leisure.²
But I know, or at least assume, that this statemeant about you is false so could you please refrain from labling me with such statemeants, thank you.

1: Lol, reread that sentence. It puts a lie to your claim. Also see this:

abortion should only be done if both parents agree on it.

2: Strawman.

[Ashmoria]

Wrong. During the pregnancy only the woman is "held responsible".

You do realize that the examples you just gave are examples of neither biological parent being held financially responsible, yes? If none of those happen both of them are held financially responsible.

You don't see a problem with the de facto situation where the legal rights and responsibilities of both parties are determined 100% by the mother without the father's input or consent?

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about what happens after birth.

the legal rights and responsibilities of a born child are determined by law.

[Ookawauso]

Yes, if A is ethical, then that does not always mean the reverse is unethical, but I was saying in an extreme view if abortion is ethical then not aborting is unethical. It's not my view but I'm sure some would beleive it.

They would be wrong.

A baby is not a toy you can just return.

So? A foetus/embryo is not a baby.

Edit: And even if it was it still wouldn't have the 'right' to use the woman's body against her will.

They would be wrong, but could still follow that false beleiving.

A foetus is a living human in an early stage of developmeant. It is not a baby, but neither are you, what difference does age make?

Edit: I think between killing the foetus and making the woman keep the baby, it is not hard to work out which is the lesserof two evils.

[Galloism]

You don't see a problem with the de facto situation where the legal rights and responsibilities of both parties are determined 100% by the mother without the father's input or consent?

They're not. End of story.

Full stop. Yes they are:

That's not really giving the child up for adoption, though. It's basically a way to keep children out of dumpsters.

From my understanding, abandonment is still illegal. These laws generally make a person who drops a child off at one of these safe points immune from prosecution for that crime in exchange for them doing it in such a way that the child doesn't likely die of exposure.

Sure, from a technical standpoint you're correct, it's not so much a legal action, as an illegal action for which they can not be punished. Of course though, from a practical perspective, the difference between a legal action, and an illegal action devoid of consequence is pretty much zero.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against what we refer to as these "safe haven" provisions, I think they have a good purpose. But there is a school of thought the proponents of which (myself included) essentially argue that a crime, devoid of punishment, is really from a "philosophy of law" standpoing (if you want to call it that) not really a crime at all. To be a crime, there must be a corresponding punishment.

By the way, interesting fact about these safe haven laws.

1) Virtually every state has one (only Alaska Hawaii and Nebraska do not).

2) In four of them (Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee) it is the mother, AND ONLY THE MOTHER who can legally do so. There is no paternal protection in those states. No states of the 47 who have safe haven provisions explicitly exclude the mother from being able to gain these protections, yet the father is explicitly excluded in 4 of them.

3) 18 states currently have provisions in place for the relinquishing parent to reclaim the child within a certain period of time (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin)

4) of those 18, five, and ONLY FIVE allow the non relinquishing father to petition for custody, within that time frame (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennesse)

So of those 47 states, in 42 of them fathers have absolutely no legal recourse to reclaim a child abandoned by the mother.

If your wife had a baby, and couldn't handle it, in 42 states she could take your baby to a safe haven point, drop it off, and you'd never see it again, no matter what action you took.

Meanwhile, if you have a baby with a hooker in a bar, you could be obliged to pay child support, even if you never wanted the child or to ever see it.

You don't find this inequitable?

[Tekania]

No, something being always "ethically justifiable" does not mean mean all abortions are ethical.



Which is also "like" completely wrong, logically speaking, as it is in no way "like" saying that at all. All it is saying is that the procedure of abortion itself is capable of always have ethical justification, that is, there is always available a priori reasoning to justify it available, but this does not mean all reasons are justification for it, and that not doing it is therefore unethical. You're jumping to a conclusion which is not logical in the sequence.



No, you're attempting to (poorly so) engage in a strawman tactic.



I agree with him 100%, because his reasoning is completely sound. And no, all abortions cannot be ethically justified, even when they are always ethically justifiable. The reasons behind it always play a part, it's merely there is a key reasoning which is always available, and thus may be used any time making the procedure always ethically justifiable.

I don't know what strwman is soor, please explain?
And now your confusing me:

all abortions cannot be ethically justified, even when they are always ethically justifiable

Is it just me or is that an oxymoron?

1. A strawman is when you attempt to posit a position upon your opponent they do not in fact support and is not born out through their position by jumping to extreme positions or the similar for the purpose of attempting to defeat their point.

2. It's just you. If I were to assault a woman in an alley, tie her down and cut her child out of her, that abortion would not be ethically justified.

[Shuggy555]

From my understanding, Men do not have any say over there legal responsibilities to the child while the woman can cancel if she so desires.

I understand that a man doesn't have the right to force any type of medical procedure on to the women but i see no problems with financial Abortion were the man openly declares wether or not he will financialy support the child.

[GeneralHaNor]

You don't see a problem with the de facto situation where the legal rights and responsibilities of both parties are determined 100% by the mother without the father's input or consent?

No, I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about what happens after birth.

the legal rights and responsibilities of a born child are determined by law.

Then it is an unjust law, that gives undo power to one party, at the expense of another.

[Ookawauso]

We, the People of Bingeaudangeoizie, have agreed to legalize abortions, but records have shown that the practice is becoming obsolete with the distribution and application of functional contraceptives.

General is out of character. Post as yourself, not your nation.

I don't know what strwman is soor, please explain?

Constructing an argument that your opponent never made, claiming they did, and then arguing against it.
In this case, Dyakovo never claimed not aborting was unethical and you were trying to make it look as though he did.

Actually, you have misunderstood, I am saying that most abortions are unethical, and he is saying all abortions can be ethically justified.

[Ookawauso]

Nobody has the right to murder their baby.There is no reason that makes that act acceptable.

I agree. But we're talking about abortion, not infanticide. If you look them up, you'll find they're actually two completely different things.

It depends on when you beleive a human is first alive, e.g. at birth or conception. Clearly he agrees with me, that an unborn child deserves life.