Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[zjl56]

I would like to state that most abortions are for convienence for the mother. But abortions only cause bad things in the long run. So I could see 2 things that could kill the huge abortion numbers.
!. A ban on abortion
2. A ban of sex outside of marriage

 

[Mise]

A ban on women might also reduce abortion, but of course, that would be stupid...

 

[Little Raven]

Joint property does not mean arbitary rights. Say your house is jointly owned by you and your wife and you want to paint it blue. Can your wife object and/or have an opinion? Sure she can. In this case you are not damaging the house and it does not decrease the livability of the house for your wife. But even then she can because you and and your wife have jointly agreed to ownership of the house.

Are you sure this analogy goes in the direction you want it to? Let's play with it.

Which do you think affects the 'livability' of my wife's body more?

• 5 minutes of sex with me?
• 10 months of carrying a fetus to term and then giving birth?

She will (physically) recover from a almost immediately. She will never be the same after b.

So why can I force her to engage in b but not a?

We are going round and round in circles. So let me ask you just one question.

That's what we always do, my friend. But like always, each revolution gets smaller and smaller...

A man and woman has consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant. She wants to keep the child. The man cannot make her abort.

Of course not. The child is not in his womb, and he can't control what another person does with their womb.

Not only that after the birth the man has to pay for the maintenance of the child. i.e. the man has responsibility post facto for the act of consensual sex.

Yup. Always suit up before battle.

Then why should not the woman have responsibility post facto for consensual sex?

In this case teh responsibility to bear the child and give it birth because the man wants it.

The woman does have responsibilities. She must either get an abortion or commit to becoming a mother. Neither choice is easy, and both have consequences. But at no point does she give up the right to control her own body.

The entire framework of abortion rights is based on equality of rights for women etc. etc. I am all for equal rights. So let's make the responsibilities equal too.

Biology makes that impossible, at least with today's technology. Eventually, of course, we will be able to extract the fetus from the womb at any age and have it survive. At that point, we will have true equality, as the man can always demand the fetus, grow it on his own, and make the mother pay child support. Until then, we do the best we can without violating the body of either party.

 

[Little Raven]

I would like to state that most abortions are for convienence for the mother.

And I would like to state that all hockey pucks on the planet Zerquan IV are blue.

Is it true? Is it false? I don't provide any evidence either way, but who cares? It's just as relevant to the debate as your contribution! Which is to say, not at all.

It doesn't matter why I don't want TLC to use my machine anymore. It's my machine. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do with it?

 

[The Last Conformist]

And I would like to state that all hockey pucks on the planet Zerquan IV are blue.

I've it on good authority that there are, in fact, two badly chipped green ones on the peninsula of Aqrawan.

***

No more reaction on my suggestion for fathers to be allowed to disown embryos? I was sort of expecting cries of "Die!, you male chauvinist pig!" ...

 

[Mise]

No more reaction on my suggestion for fathers to be allowed to disown embryos? I was sort of expecting cries of "Die!, you male chauvinist pig!" ...

We're all irresponsible young men here

 

[Little Raven]

I've it on good authority that there are, in fact, two badly chipped green ones on the peninsula of Aqrawan.

My bad. I should have specified "regulation sized." The Aqrawan Aquas are clearly oversized.

No more reaction on my suggestion for fathers to be allowed to disown embryos? I was sort of expecting cries of "Die!, you male chauvinist pig!" ...

Not from this quarter. But I imagine the pro-lifers aren't going to like the idea, because it would undoubtedly lead more women to seek abortions.

 

[betazed]

She will (physically) recover from a almost immediately. She will never be the same after b.

Why do you say that? I am told that having sex for a woman is much more of an emotional deal than a man. It does not matter whether it is 5 minutes or 5 hours. So there is a permanent change on a woman when you ask her to have sex with you. So (a) is as permanent as (b). Physical effects of (b) may be greater but why should you ignore psychological effects of (a).

That's what we always do, my friend. But like always, each revolution gets smaller and smaller...

True.

The woman does have responsibilities. She must either get an abortion or commit to becoming a mother. Neither choice is easy, and both have consequences. But at no point does she give up the right to control her own body.

By having an abortion she is not fulfilling her responsibility. She is getting rid of it. The equivalent of abortion for a man would be as TLC said. Say in the first trimester the man states clearly that he has no rights or responsibilities on the child and is ablsoved of all future duties towards it. I see you agree to that.

Since the man cannot do that neither should the woman. By agreeing to TLC's suggestion and seeing that a man cannot do that are you not agreeing that a man has got the worse deal here?

Biology makes that impossible, at least with today's technology. Eventually, of course, we will be able to extract the fetus from the womb at any age and have it survive. At that point, we will have true equality, as the man can always demand the fetus, grow it on his own, and make the mother pay child support. Until then, we do the best we can without violating the body of either party.

Finally, we converge. yes, biology makes things impossible here. Since biology makes the man incapable of taking the foetus and having the baby, I think it is as logical to state that he must be given the right to the womb as it is logical to state that the woman has absolute rights on the womb. It seems to me that you are agreeing implicitly that the father's rights are sacrificed in your scenario.

Neither pov in my mind is unassailable. Both tread on each other rights. IMHO, while you are comfortable on giving the father the boot I am not so comfortable doing that in all cases.

And btw, I will be damned. I always thought hockey pucks from Zarquon are red. Hold on, I have a 300 page mathematical proof here for that....

 

[WillJ]

Little Raven, I'm lazy and thus have only skimmed through this thread, but about your dialysis machine analogy: Are you against all forms of taxation?

Oh, and I'm against abortion but for killing babies.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not from this quarter. But I imagine the pro-lifers aren't going to like the idea, because it would undoubtedly lead more women to seek abortions.

Where I come, feminists (who are anything but a fringe faction here) tend to take any suggestion that present abortion rights screws the father very badly.

I don't know what our local anti-abortionists would think - they're not a group whose views get alot of coverage - but I suspect they'd be lessed than thrilled too, and cite the father's responsibility and implied consent.

 

[luiz]

You mean the other way round, don't you? If Brazil's growth is above the world average, Brazil should double before the world at large.

Last prognosis I heard said the world population should plateau at about 10½ billion ca 2100 AD. I doubt I could find the reference again, tho.

Oh, my mistake.
I meant that the growth in Brazil is a bit below the world average

(I think the world average is 1,9% ay, while in Brazil it is 1,7% ay)

 

[The Last Conformist]

We're all irresponsible young men here

Just you wait till Chieftess comes around!

 

[luiz]

To you perhaps. Not to a responsible woman who have taken all reasonable precautions and nonetheless ends up with an unwanted pregnancy, I'm pretty sure.

To me and to any Law Maker. Statiscally it's nothing.
It's like saying that chewing gum is safe. Of course the family of that guy who choked to death with gum would disagree*, but this doesn't change the fact that gum is safe and there's no need to ban it.

*It actually happened

Another thing.
When having sex one knows full well of the risks involved. By taking some precautions the chances of pregnancy are virtually nule, but everyone knows that there is always a chance. We must deal with the consequences of our actions, and in the present world virtually nobody can claim ignorance on what the consequences of sex can be.

 

[Little Raven]

I am told that having sex for a woman is much more of an emotional deal than a man. It does not matter whether it is 5 minutes or 5 hours. So there is a permanent change on a woman when you ask her to have sex with you. So (a) is as permanent as (b). Physical effects of (b) may be greater but why should you ignore psychological effects of (a).

Even so, are you really going to argue that the psychological effects of bearing a child are less than the psychological effects of having sex? If you are comfortable forcing the woman to endure (b), surely you're comfortable forcing her to endure (a), yes? Otherwise, why is (a) off limits when (b) is perfectly acceptable?

By having an abortion she is not fulfilling her responsibility. She is getting rid of it. The equivalent of abortion for a man would be as TLC said. Say in the first trimester the man states clearly that he has no rights or responsibilities on the child and is ablsoved of all future duties towards it. I see you agree to that.

Since the man cannot do that neither should the woman. By agreeing to TLC's suggestion and seeing that a man cannot do that are you not agreeing that a man has got the worse deal here?

Sure. Like I said, life isn't fair, and in this we get the downside, at least under current law. I would support revising the law. But I can't support anything that denies to a woman the right to control her own body.

Finally, we converge. yes, biology makes things impossible here. Since biology makes the man incapable of taking the foetus and having the baby, I think it is as logical to state that he must be given the right to the womb as it is logical to state that the woman has absolute rights on the womb. It seems to me that you are agreeing implicitly that the father's rights are sacrificed in your scenario.

No, I'm not. The father has the same rights as the mother to keep the fetus. He just doesn't have the same abilities. It's a key difference.

I can't draw the way FredLC can. It's sad, but true. I may desire to draw as well as he does, but it's not going to happen. But the fact that I lack the ability to draw the way he can does not give me the right to demand he draw something for me. My lack of ability does not denote a legal responsibility on his part.

The father has the right to keep the fetus. Unfortunately, the father does not have the ability to nurture the fetus. That's too bad for him. But that doesn't mean the mother is obligated to provide a womb for him to raise his child in. It's her womb.

Neither pov in my mind is unassailable. Both tread on each other rights. IMHO, while you are comfortable on giving the father the boot I am not so comfortable doing that in all cases.

No, they do not both tread on rights. A father has no right to his partners womb, anymore than I have a right to my wife's personal bits. I may sometimes feel like I do, ( ) but the fact is, it's her vagina, and I can't force her to share it.

On the other hand, forcing a woman to yield the use of her womb and submit to a process that will forever alter her body is clearly stepping on her right to control her body.

Truthfully, I'm not happy about letting the father off the hook either, but I don't see how I can defend keeping him on it in an age when the woman has a choice about raising the child or not.

 

[Little Raven]

Little Raven, I'm lazy and thus have only skimmed through this thread, but about your dialysis machine analogy: Are you against all forms of taxation?

Not in the least. No libertarian here.

But I am for protecting individual rights whenever possible. If you can demonstrate that forcing me to share my machine with TLC produces a net social gain, then I'll gladly agree that the state should force me to do so. But I reject the notion that TLCs need alone is a compelling reason.

 

[Little Raven]

Where I come, feminists (who are anything but a fringe faction here) tend to take any suggestion that present abortion rights screws the father very badly.

I'm sure. They are, after all, a special interest group, and they have (surprise surprise) special interests in mind. Like all such groups, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

And frankly, in my gut, I don't like the idea of letting fathers off the hook just because they feel like it. But I can't construct a rational defense for keeping them on it.

 

[WillJ]

Not in the least. No libertarian here.

But I am for protecting individual rights whenever possible.

So you don't have a problem with forcing people to give up their money to, say, educate people, but you do have a problem with forcing a person to use a machine to keep someone alive?

 

[Little Raven]

So you don't have a problem with forcing people to give up their money to, say, educate people, but you do have a problem with forcing a person to use a machine to keep someone alive?

Yup. If you can demonstrate that forcing me to allow TLC access to my machine is in the interests of the public good, then by all means do so. But remember that we're discussing public good, not TLC's good, which will make the math much more complicated.

But I reject the notion that just because TLC needs the machine I am legally obligated to provide him with it.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

2. A ban of sex outside of marriage

You are clearly too young to have sex, so you might not understand the absurdity in your statement.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm afraid I don't have anything to add at the moment, but I just wanted to put in a quick as you all have both put forth very compelling and thought-provoking arguments here.