Abortion(do guys have a say?)

[Dyakovo]

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.

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?'

1: It's not made up.
2: Reality disagrees with you. I suggest you take a look at the risks of pregnancy.
3: I'm not. I'm calling an unwanted pregnancy a problem. Although as an unrelated side note, a person can be a problem.

[Ashmoria]

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

people are the biggest "problems" out there.

[Erinkita]

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.

Sorry. Typo.
You're the one being kept alive.
I'm serious. You obviously have no problem with one person using another's body for their own physical benefit without the other's consent.

[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.

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

Because it is the most moral one, and in fact, as far as I know every mainstream religion forbids murder except under special conditions, so because neither of us has taken a survey, or searched for one I will assume i have the majority.

[Erinkita]

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

Because it is the most moral one, and in fact, as far as I know every mainstream religion forbids murder except under special conditions, so because neither of us has taken a survey, or searched for one I will assume i have the majority.

Violating a woman's bodily autonomy for the sake of a mindless clump of cells is moral?

[Galloism]

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?

Ahem.

[Ookawauso]

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.

You said to "Move on," I assumed you meant to stop talking about it.

[Ashmoria]

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

Because it is the most moral one, and in fact, as far as I know every mainstream religion forbids murder except under special conditions, so because neither of us has taken a survey, or searched for one I will assume i have the majority.

its moral TO YOU.

for the majority of american its not immoral to decide that they dont want to bring a child into the world right now. the vast majority of US abortions are done at under 10 weeks. no harm/no foul.

[Ookawauso]

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.

What does citizenship have to do with human rights?
It is only one embryo, and you nothing more than a collection of cells.

[Ashmoria]

Full stop. Yes they are:




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?

Ahem.

now go find the instances of fathers being denied their legally abandoned children.

[Tekania]

Ahem.

now go find the instances of fathers being denied their legally abandoned children.

If it helps I can provide examples of fathers abandoning their children at safe-haven's as well. But you know, it really all just a racket to extort money from us poor poor poor men.

[Ookawauso]

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).

Ethically justifiable means that it can be justified morally.
"Justifiable means having the ability to be justified" - worst definition i have ever seen.
I looked back at what was originally said, and Dyakovo said "Abortion is always ethically justifiable." however you are saying can be ethically justified, so maybe you have misunderstood me?

I would say the priority would be to preserve human life by any means neccessary, except extreme ones, e.g. at the cost of other human lives.
If the women goes through a few months of discomfort so someone may live their entire life then so be it.

[Ashmoria]

now go find the instances of fathers being denied their legally abandoned children.

If it helps I can provide examples of fathers abandoning their children at safe-haven's as well. But you know, it really all just a racket to extort money from us poor poor poor men.

oh i didnt know that fathers ever did that. ....well except for the family that tried to abandon their teenagers ....

these safe haven laws are for desperate people in desperate circumstances in order to keep them from leaving a baby out in the cold or in a dumpster.

there are certainly potential problems with these bills. i assume they havent been tweaked because the problems havent actually occurred in real life.

[Galloism]

Ahem.

now go find the instances of fathers being denied their legally abandoned children.

My googlefu is failing me ATM. I'll look when I get off work.

[Galloism]

now go find the instances of fathers being denied their legally abandoned children.

If it helps I can provide examples of fathers abandoning their children at safe-haven's as well. But you know, it really all just a racket to extort money from us poor poor poor men.

Burn that strawman. Burn it good.

I never said it was a racket - just inequitable. Do try to address the points I've actually raised, rather than ones you make up on the fly.

[Ashmoria]

now go find the instances of fathers being denied their legally abandoned children.

My googlefu is failing me ATM. I'll look when I get off work.

mine too. its hard to figure out what to ask unless someone out there is making a fuss about it.

[Ashmoria]

If it helps I can provide examples of fathers abandoning their children at safe-haven's as well. But you know, it really all just a racket to extort money from us poor poor poor men.

Burn that strawman. Burn it good.

I never said it was a racket - just inequitable. Do try to address the points I've actually raised, rather than ones you make up on the fly.

but he did show how it IS equitable because men also abandon babies under safe haven laws.

[Dyakovo]

Burn that strawman. Burn it good.

I never said it was a racket - just inequitable. Do try to address the points I've actually raised, rather than ones you make up on the fly.

but he did show how it IS equitable because men also abandon babies under safe haven laws.

Shhh! Don't let reality intrude on his little rant..

[Ookawauso]

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?'

1: It's not made up.
2: Reality disagrees with you. I suggest you take a look at the risks of pregnancy.
3: I'm not. I'm calling an unwanted pregnancy a problem. Although as an unrelated related side note, a person can be a problem.

1) Oh, well thats all cleared up then. I dont need any evidence at all.not even a definition youjust made up
2) AGAIN FOETUS' DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE, DON'T COMMIT CRIMES, AND POLICE DON'T NEED TO KILL THEM IN THEIR LINE OF DUTY SO IT IS NOT LEGALLY SPEAKING JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
3) Oh, sorry i misunderstood. although as a related side note a person can be a problem, but are not, themselves A problem. although as an unrelated side note my favourite animal is a leopard.

[Dyakovo]

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).

Ethically justifiable means that it can be justified morally.
"Justifiable means having the ability to be justified" - worst definition i have ever seen.

What is wrong with that definition?

[Galloism]

Burn that strawman. Burn it good.

I never said it was a racket - just inequitable. Do try to address the points I've actually raised, rather than ones you make up on the fly.

but he did show how it IS equitable because men also abandon babies under safe haven laws.

And black persons could occasionally vote even with poll taxes. However, even though they were de jure nondiscriminatory, they were de facto discriminatory.

Fact is, in the vast majority of cases where safe haven laws will come into play, the mother is in direct possession of the child for the duration of the safe haven window, which is typically 72hrs to 7 days.

Even if the father petitions for custody or paternal rights within minutes of birth, he wouldn't get them in that timeframe. Therefore, he can only use the safe haven laws with the assistance (witting or unwitting) of the child's mother.

[Ookawauso]

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.

Sorry. Typo.
You're the one being kept alive.
I'm serious. You obviously have no problem with one person temporarily using, with often few permanent negative, another's body for their own physical benefit to stay alive without the other's consent.

I may agree to that statemeant if all it means is (in the reverse where i would keep you alive ) me stuck in a room conected to you via some machine with a few wires, and people brought me food ect.
however, again that situation is not plausable

[Dyakovo]

1: It's not made up.
2: Reality disagrees with you. I suggest you take a look at the risks of pregnancy.
3: I'm not. I'm calling an unwanted pregnancy a problem. Although as an unrelated related side note, a person can be a problem.

1) Oh, well thats all cleared up then. I dont need any evidence at all.not even a definition youjust made up
2) AGAIN FOETUS' DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE, DON'T COMMIT CRIMES, AND POLICE DON'T NEED TO KILL THEM IN THEIR LINE OF DUTY SO IT IS NOT LEGALLY SPEAKING JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
3) Oh, sorry i misunderstood. although as a related side note a person can be a problem, but are not, themselves A problem. although as an unrelated side note my favourite animal is a leopard.

1: Personhood
2: Pregnancy can cause irreparable harm to a woman's body, thus it can be said that a foetus is "attacking" the woman. Although this was a side point not directly related to the discussion at hand. You said "and if it was a person (which it is) no one has the right to kill it." I was showing you that you were wrong in your statement that someone never has a right to kill another person.

[Ashmoria]

3) Oh, sorry i misunderstood. although as a related side note a person can be a problem, but are not, themselves A problem. although as an unrelated side note my favourite animal is a leopard.

no really, people ARE problems.

the thing is that with actual people you can do something (or nothing) about it.

so if your husband beats you, you can divorce him. if your brother is a manipulative asshole you can stop supporting him and let him end up living under an overpass (madonna).

[Ookawauso]

Because it is the most moral one, and in fact, as far as I know every mainstream religion forbids murder except under special conditions, so because neither of us has taken a survey, or searched for one I will assume i have the majority.

Violating a woman's bodily autonomy for the sake of a mindless clump of cells is moral?

Not killing a person is moral.