Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

Okay, be honest....would you execute a woman for "murder" who self-induced an abortion at 3 weeks?

Yes or No...and why?

 

Here's some more inconvenient questions you won't answer.

WHAT detrimental effect does abortion have on society?

HOW have you been affected by abortion?

Whether or not animals do anything out of instinct had nothing to do with the point being made. DUH



And your continued drooling about women being selfish because they do something they want to do and YOU NOT being selfish when you do what YOU want to do is realllllly getting boring...

 

Can I just agree with this statement a thousand times over? I am soooo tired of hearing the "she's so selfish!" whining. Who cares!? Everything we do is selfish, so what's the point in bringing it up other than to belittle women?

 

The "Amazing" thing is he's had it explained to him about a dozen times and he still just can't get it....

 

True, but harming an innocent child for selfish reasons is totally different from the average persons's selfishness. I am not trying to belittle women. I don't understand why (on the previous page) Gorn Captain called me a misogynist, and you say that I want to belittle women.

 

Selfishness has nothing to do with it Sam, as I have pointed out to you many times before. Many women choose abortions out of selflessness because they are thinking of their potential child and it's potential future. Knowing they cannot give it the life it deserves they abort out of selflessness whereas many women choose to have babies out of selfishness and don't care if the child suffers in poverty or wallows away in an orphanage or foster care.

 

A woman is NOT harming an innocent child when she has an abortion. You disagreeing with that doesn't make it less a fact.


Yes, you ARE belittling women when you say their only reason for getting an abortion is "selfish", a word you consider "bad".

 

nope it doesn't, it only effects the people involved, it has no effect on the people not involved

You brought up rape and murder as justifications for laws being based on moral principles, I was just pointing out to you that if that was the case why did it take until 1992 to make rape in marriage illegal in all states. The first state laws making marital rape illegal were enacted in the 1970's, it took another 20+ years for it to be illegal in all states despite it being seen as morally wrong.

Begging the question again I see .. please provide proof positive that god (any god) exists. oh and BTW will you stop moving the goalposts please.

 

how do the other things affect people not involved?

- - - Updated - - -

Many people have died and came back to life. But whether or not God exists is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

but you do, you use general terms to fit your agenda when the correct terms should be used, you do it simply to project an emotional rhetoric onto others in the hope it will install a sense of guilt in them or persuade others to view them as "evil", that is nothing more than an appeal to emotions, a logical fallacy that basically means you have nothing of merit to include in the debate .. ie you and your comments are irrelevant to the debate, you have nothing of value or meaning to contribute.

good description of a partial birth abortion which is ILLEGAL in the USA, and please do provide the proof that fetuses "struggle to avoid the scissors"

no problem the description being used in context as the one above given is .. however, as partial birth abortions are illegal it is really a moot issue.

Now why don't you describe in graphic details the abortion procedure used for a fetus less than 12 weeks which is when the vast majority of abortions take place .. you won't because that would spoil your emotion filled mantra.

Well as your association is factually false, or if you prefer a lie, then your appeal to emotion fallacy means precisely zero to me.

 

Murder installs fear into society, if someone is murdered and the criminal not caught there is the fear to the individual that they could be next, a fear that is installed in all people.

Same for rape.

Abortion does nothing to effect society as a whole.

then why did you bring an irrelevant point into the debate .. stop running away Sam.

 

I don't know for sure where such decision of the law will be made. If I look through the history of law making itself, I would say the possibilities are very grim. That said, I say again that whether or not they make such decisions or "legal realities", they still aren't infallible. They are very often swayed by their own opinions or public opinion as well.

I am not falling into such a fallacy. I make the argument that all laws are based on moral thinking, and the evidence is global and obvious. From communist countries to capitalistic ones, from atheist or religious ones, and more. Every country has laws based around the morality of its people, hence why a tribe of savages allows murder, but we do not. Our moral systems are inherently different, thus our laws are different.

Seeing you don't want to see this clear and reasonable idea though, I think that continued debate with you would be about as futile as doing so with a post.

I do not see how it doing this regardless of the zygote's presence changes that fact that it still does this, and is in essence pushing the zygote to doom. Truly the zygote could be considered in a dangerous situation or doomed by the woman's body by its very existence being forced upon it within her body. Again, by her actions and nobody else's. Whether or not it will do it regardless of the zygotes presence doesn't change the fact it does it to the zygote at that time.

Besides this, the introduction of sperm is a choice of someone else in the first place.

The problem with your entire argument against mine is that you suppose I can argue with the law against the law, or that I should. Basically, when the law says abortion is alright, I must use the law to say it isn't. Do you see the inherent contradictory nature of this? In other words, it isn't possible, because the law states that abortion is lawful, which is what I wish to change in the first place.

This is perfectly acceptable to do, especially when it is against laws made from the bench with reasoning of the most incomprehensibly foolish nature. Reasoning which refuses to answer to pure common sense, the same reasoning you are using here. The reasoning that gives forth a nonsensical definition of pregnancy to an immoral way of dealing with supposed injury.

Personally, I don't think the rubbish is worth arguing with at this point.

 

They are only infallible based on what you deem as right or wrong, no different to any other persons perspective on any given law.

If they are swayed by public opinion etc then you should have no trouble citing a law that is or was influenced by public opinion and not based on precedence or constitutional interpretation.

I disagree to a point, in countries that have a constitution or any other such document the laws of that country are based on it .. countries without one tend to be religiously motivated and base their laws on that, other laws are common laws, these are laws that have been built up from and are derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes. To me laws are based on the common good and as such those laws can and do align with moral principles but that does not mean they are based on moral principles.

I see it I simply don't agree with it or do you wish me to lie in order to satisfy you requirements?

Because if there is no fertilization there is no "person", the person at conception ideology creates a separate individual at the moment of fertilization and according to the restrictions placed upon a person it must have consent to infringe on another person.

The introduction of the sperm is a choice of someone else, the fertilization of the ovum is not.

That is the reality, in a court of law you would have to provide compelling reasons why a law should be over turned .. so far you do not have any compelling reasons, or none that you have provided so far.

If you stand up in court and proclaim that abortion is morally wrong do you think that the judges are going to just say "yes it is" and overturn legal abortion .. if you do then you are deluded.

and I have not said it is not acceptable .. yet so far you have not made any compelling arguments to dispute the legal and biological facts I have presented . .not a single one.

It really is simple -

Is an injury received without consent legal or illegal.
Does a person require consent in order to infringe on another persons rights
Does a person have the right to defend themselves against unconsented injuries
Is consent by one person for one act transferable to another person for a separate act
Is a person stopped from seeking medical relief from an injury sustained through a risk they took
Can a person be forced to sustain the life of another even when they are the cause of that person being in the position they are
Does a man legally cause pregnancy

All of these questions I have covered and answered based on the very same reasoning that would be used in a court of law.

then I take that as your admittance that you have no real arguments at all.

 

Pregnancy is a unique situation, because of all the factors involved. That could be argued in court.

 

Been here before, pregnancy is not a unique situation as far as the law and courts are concerned. The restrictions placed on the status of being a person are the same for all people deemed to have that status, or are you suggesting that a zef should have rights that no other person has ie a super-person and that those rights should be removed upon birth?

If you are then you are placing arbitrary decisions as to when and who rights apply to based on age and location.

 

it could be argued in courts that pregnancy is a unique situation.

not taking certain factors into consideration.

nope, because of the uniqueness of the situation, from my perspective. a lot of different factors make a situation totally different.

 

HOW is pregnancy a unique situation?

What "certain factors"?


What "different factors" make what situation totally different?

 

nope, a person is a person is a person and the law treats all persons the same.

like what

like what

 

The constitution itself. It was completely brought about through public opinion since public opinion brought about the war which brought forth the United States. It was the opinion of the framers to make the constitution as it is today, and it was through vote that it came into being. The constitution is based upon moral principles. The concept of rights in the first place is ultimately a moral decision.

In fact all laws, and as you later mention, common laws, are based upon what other people think aught to be. What they will use force to ensure exists as a restriction or right. Thus, these are moral decisions. This issue is the key of this entire debate. One of us debates from the position of what the law says (and that they agree with), and the other debates from what they believe is morally correct and do not agree with the law ( myself). Neither of us could care for the others views or arguments since they are irrelevant to each other. In bothour eyes the others arguments seem ridiculous. You see why it is therefore so futile?

Wrong, wrong , wrong and wrong again. Slavery was legally acceptable till the Civil War. Do you think people used what the law clearly stated regarding slavery to overturn slavery? No. They changed the law.

Women's suffrage. It was legally acceptable that women were not allowed to vote, they simply couldn't. Do you think they used the law to change this? No, since the state constitutions said that it was acceptable. They changed the law.

In both these cases the law was changed, not on its own basis but on the moral opinions of others. Some with votes, others with violence. Either way they did it.

Yes I have, you have ignored them over and over and continued to give excuses as to why.

The fertilization of the ovum, by any means, results in a person.
The person resulting has no choice as to its existence where it is, that decision is made for it.
The person is then thrust into a life and death situation by the woman's body and aforementioned existence caused by fertilization.
The person defends themselves and attempt to survive by any means possible.
The attempt to survive results in pregnancy.

You have then spoken about the fertilization of the ovum being a "but for" cause or factual cause, which it isn't. That is because it is the direct cause of the zygote's presence, which you claim causes pregnancy. Therefore the fertilization of the ovum causes pregnancy.

All this is from your perspective, based upon what you have set forth as the definition of pregnancy and what pregnancy constitutes. All of which I dispute in the first place. My entire point in this discussion is to point out that even from those deluded standards (set up by some guy in a black robe, who you believe makes the ultimate decision), abortion is still wrong. My second point is to explain why these definitions of pregnancy, laws about pregnancy, and so on, matter nothing to me in any way.

Twist it to whatever meaning you wish, as you do with most things. I really do not care at this point.

 

When? When EXACTLY in fertilization is it a "person"?

 

Name one situation (besides pregnancy) where a woman's actions lead to her being "injured" by an incompetent person.

 

How about boarding a bus where the driver is intoxicated and has a wreck?

 

That analogy doesn't work because (A)-the driver is still not innocent. He chose to get drunk, and is responsible for his actions and (b)-self defense is not involved in that situation. My question was this.

 

Republican government and personal liberty for "the people" were to overspread the New World continents and to last forever, a gift to posterity. Most of these were influenced by Enlightenment philosophy. The adherents to this cause seized on English Whig political philosophy as described by historian Forrest McDonald as justification for most of their changes to received colonial charters and traditions. It was rooted in opposition to monarchy they saw as venal and corrupting to the "permanent interests of the people."

The age of Enlightenment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_philosophy

So your moral outlook is superior to all others in your opinion.

So let is assume that I agree to a point that laws are based on moral principles, whose principles should bear the greater merit. While you believe abortion is morally wrong, I in turn believe forcing a person to incur injuries is also morally wrong . .even more so if that force is done by those in power. That to me epitomizes the ultimate intrusion of the state upon a person.

I'm sorry you are wrong, all of the above were changed due to the compelling arguments offered, compelling enough to over ride the accepted laws of that time. The arguments given were strong enough to change the law, simply stating that something is morally wrong is not a strong enough rationale to effect a change .. you have to provide the why, and as to slavery a war was fought because some people refused to accept the compelling reasoning as to why it should be abolished. Courts do not work on moral rights or wrong, they work on evidence to provide enough proof to change things or to punish.

This is plain to see in the current over ruling of state laws banning same-sex marriage even though over 50% of Americans consider homosexual relationships as immoral, their opinion on the matter does not factor in the arguments .. in fact those that have used that argument have been told it is not a valid argument in law.

I have ignored nothing that you have put forward

correct, and as a person it is bound by the restrictions all persons are

A decision requires a choice, there is no choice involved as to whether fertilization take place, a woman cannot simply choose not to allow the sperm to fertilize the ovum, it is therefore coercive.

In is only put into that situation by actions that the woman has no control over, no person can be held responsible for consequences of actions they cannot control.

Which without the consent of the woman is illegal.

Yes it is.

My claim is that the presence of the fertilized ovum in IMPLANTATION (the accepted medical definition of when pregnancy starts) is the legal cause of pregnancy . .not the point of fertilization.

Those "deluded" standards are all backed up with the current legal standings and biological facts, which if you had bothered to read, the references are all cited in the topic here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html

that is a blatant lie.

and as I have said if you or some other pro-life lawyer goes into court with a view to changing abortion laws without any credence given to the current legal standings they will fall flat on their face, a law whether you agree with it or not is the law until such time compelling reasons are presented why that law should be over ruled, and that is not to say that the law is always right, it isn't .. but .. to show it is not right requires enough proof and reason to establish that as a fact.

You can proclaim as much as you wish that I am twisting things, the reality is a whole lot different.

 

You don;t get to ask me any questions at all until you answer the numerous questions asked of you that you ignore;

you want an answer, you can start by answering the following -

Like what?

Like What?