Abortion(do guys have a say?)

[Erinkita]

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


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.

No. I didn't. I understand what both of you are saying. You claimed that saying abortion is ethically justifiable was like saying carrying a child to term was ethically unjustifiable. That's both a strawman and a logical fallacy. Accept it. Move on.

[GeneralHaNor]

They're not. End of story.

Full stop. Yes they are:

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?

That's fairly fucked up to be honest
I mean, like a real fucking injustice kinda fucked up.

[Ookawauso]

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.

Its still a human.

[Dyakovo]

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 that a woman is nothing nothing more than a walking talking incubator.

Fixed

[Dyakovo]

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

Its still a human.

But not a person. And even if it was a person it wouldn't have the 'right' to use another person's body against their will.

[GeneralHaNor]

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 that a woman is nothing nothing more than a walking talking incubator.

Fixed

I'm sensing a recurring pattern here, rather then argue a position, you would rather demonize your enemy

I understand it's easier then actually having a point.

[Dyakovo]

Fixed

I'm sensing a recurring pattern here, rather then argue a position, you would rather demonize your enemy

I understand it's easier then actually having a point.

That's rich coming from you...
I have argued my position.

[Ookawauso]

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.

I am against abortion except when absolutly neccessary, but I know because of people like you that will never be made the law, so that is the best I can hope for, also that statemeant was made in answer to the original question of wether the father has a say in abortion, it was not to answer the question "is abortion ok?"

I am not strawman as far as i have understand it, you claim there is nothing wrong with abortion, and i am justifying why i disagree.

[Erinkita]

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.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the Grey tunnel isn't your puppet, which seems fairly likely, but I'll let it slide.

A child, perhaps. A foetus or embryo is categorically not a child. No amount of distortion will make a word mean something that it doesn't.
Even if it could reasonably be considered a child, that doesn't give it the right to use a woman's body against her will. No one should be forced carry a parasitic growth inside their body for nine months regardless of whether it's human or not.

[Ookawauso]

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



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.

STILL confused, you said "they are always ethically justifiable," refering to abortions, and just now you give an example where it is not. However, this example is not the knid of thing I'm talking about as its against the womans will.

[Phoenixiaiza]

yes and no.
yes because he is the father or whot not...

no because some choose boys over girls...the fathers are picky. -.-'

[Ookawauso]

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

No. I didn't. I understand what both of you are saying. You claimed that saying abortion is ethically justifiable was like saying carrying a child to term was ethically unjustifiable. That's both a strawman and a logical fallacy. Accept it. Move on.

I said that is an extreme point of view someone could take,and your the one who keeps bringing it up

[Ookawauso]

Its still a human.

But not a person. And even if it was a person it wouldn't have the 'right' to use another person's body against their will.

How is any human not a person? and if it was a person (which it is) no one has the right to kill it.
how can you think death is the best option if the mother doesn't want someone living in her?

[Erinkita]

No. I didn't. I understand what both of you are saying. You claimed that saying abortion is ethically justifiable was like saying carrying a child to term was ethically unjustifiable. That's both a strawman and a logical fallacy. Accept it. Move on.

I said that is an extreme point of view someone could take,and your the one who keeps bringing it up

You said that later to try and retroactively justify it. Doesn't make much sense, though. Why randomly mention some hypothetical viewpoint in answer to a specific argument? It's a weak attempt to rationalize a poorly constructed argument.

I brought it up in response to your question. You responded with a mistaken assumption. I corrected you. If you think we should stop talking about it, perhaps you should stop replying.

[Ookawauso]

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.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the Grey tunnel isn't your puppet, which seems fairly likely, but I'll let it slide.

A child, perhaps. A foetus or embryo is categorically not a child. No amount of distortion will make a word mean something that it doesn't.
Even if it could reasonably be considered a child, that doesn't give it the right to use a woman's body against her will. No one should be forced carry a parasitic growth inside their body for nine months regardless of whether it's human or not.

Its not a child,but it is a human.
No one should be allowed to end a human life against their will, or if they are unable to give their will.

[Ookawauso]

I said that is an extreme point of view someone could take,and your the one who keeps bringing it up

You said that later to try and retroactively justify it. Doesn't make much sense, though. Why randomly mention some hypothetical viewpoint in answer to a specific argument? It's a weak attempt to rationalize a poorly constructed argument.

I brought it up in response to your question. You responded with a mistaken assumption. I corrected you. If you think we should stop talking about it, perhaps you should stop replying.

What is wrong with giving examples? Nothing.
Your the one who keeps asking to end the debate, so perhaps you should stop replying.

[Dyakovo]

But not a person. And even if it was a person it wouldn't have the 'right' to use another person's body against their will.

How is any human not a person?¹ and if it was a person (which it is) no one has the right to kill it.²
how can you think death is the best option if the mother doesn't want someone living in her?³

1: Simply because it does not meet the criteria of personhood.
2: Wrong again. I suggest you look up "Justifiable homicide".
3: Easily. It is the best option, what with it being the only option that actually addresses the problem.

The ability to act in the world.
The capacity for introspection and the ability to reconcile oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.
Having a notion of past and future.

Justifiable homicide is the killing of one person by another that is committed without malice or criminal intent. When a person commits a justifiable homicide they are not guilty of a criminal offense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty.

[Erinkita]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the Grey tunnel isn't your puppet, which seems fairly likely, but I'll let it slide.

A child, perhaps. A foetus or embryo is categorically not a child. No amount of distortion will make a word mean something that it doesn't.
Even if it could reasonably be considered a child, that doesn't give it the right to use a woman's body against her will. No one should be forced carry a parasitic growth inside their body for nine months regardless of whether it's human or not.

Its not a child,but it is a human.
No one should be allowed to end a human life against their will, or if they are unable to give their will.

So if you required me to be connected to you through some sort of life support system to keep me alive, and had it done without my permission, I would have no right to disconnect myself from the system and allow you to die?

[Ashmoria]

Its not a child,but it is a human.
No one should be allowed to end a human life against their will, or if they are unable to give their will.

yes thats an interesting opinion. but not everyone shares that opinion--most dont, actually--so why should your opinion rule the day?

[Erinkita]

You said that later to try and retroactively justify it. Doesn't make much sense, though. Why randomly mention some hypothetical viewpoint in answer to a specific argument? It's a weak attempt to rationalize a poorly constructed argument.

I brought it up in response to your question. You responded with a mistaken assumption. I corrected you. If you think we should stop talking about it, perhaps you should stop replying.

What is wrong with giving examples? Nothing.
Your the one who keeps asking to end the debate, so perhaps you should stop replying.

If this was intended as an example, which from the context it clearly wasn't, then it's a poor one as it has no relevence to the topic at hand.
When did I ask to end the debate? I have no problem discussing this.

[Vinstin]

As someone who would consider himself a Christian, I refuse to bring faith into the Abortion (Or any legal matter) argument. The political world and the world of religion should not mix. Only logic should be placed in the political world, and thus using religion as a justification for law is both foolish and ill-conceived. Unlike religion, logic can not be denied or dismissed.

If we assume that the fetus is not a person, and thus does not have rights, then I see fit that the woman has full say. She is the one who must carry the child for nine months, and will be the most effected by it. That said, I feel the couple should do their best to come to an agreement, but in the end, the woman has the final say.

But if we are to assume the fetus is person, and thus has the rights of person, I must question the legality of an abortion. This would need to do some personally research, but in the end, I must keep faith out of this.

That said, I do not see a fetus as a person. Until the fetus has been born, and thus gained citizenship to a nation, it is nothing more than a collection of embryos and cells.

[Dyakovo]

Ignoring the rest because I have no issue with it...

But if we are to assume the fetus is person, and thus has the rights of person, I must question the legality of an abortion.

Why?

[Ookawauso]

How is any human not a person?¹ and if it was a person (which it is) no one has the right to kill it.²
how can you think death is the best option if the mother doesn't want someone living in her?³

1: Simply because it does not meet the criteria of personhood.
2: Wrong again. I suggest you look up "Justifiable homicide".
3: Easily. It is the best option, what with it being the only option that actually addresses the problem.

The ability to act in the world.
The capacity for introspection and the ability to reconcile oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.
Having a notion of past and future.

Justifiable homicide is the killing of one person by another that is committed without malice or criminal intent. When a person commits a justifiable homicide they are not guilty of a criminal offense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty.

1) Don't know what personhood is, so I assume made up. This is the best ever definition of a person:
"The concept of a person is difficult to define in a way that is universally accepted, due to its historical and cultural variability and the controversies surrounding its use in some contexts."

2) "in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty"
Foetus' don't attack people, don't commit crimes, and police men are not required to perform an abortion in their line of duty.

3) How can you call a person a 'problem?'

[Tekania]

STILL confused, you said "they are always ethically justifiable," refering to abortions, and just now you give an example where it is not. However, this example is not the knid of thing I'm talking about as its against the womans will.

Perhaps it is an issue with language you are having then. Justifiable means having the ability to be justified. Merely because a procedure (abortion) can always be ethically justifiable (that is, there always exist reasons which may be used to justify it) does not mean that any and all reasons may be used to justify it.

The primary point of this is that a woman's rights over her own body are a priori reason, which is always available as a means of justification for abortion (or lack thereof for that matter).

[Ookawauso]

Its not a child,but it is a human.
No one should be allowed to end a human life against their will, or if they are unable to give their will.

So if you required me to be connected to you through some sort of life support system to keep me alive, and had it done without my permission, I would have no right to disconnect myself from the system and allow you to die?

Who is being kept alive? are you purposefully confusing me?
if it was to keep you alive then you can choose to die if its what you want, if it were to keep me alive please come up with a plausable example.