Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

So you're actually pro-abortion and not pro-choice. That's cool, if you're actually acknowledging it, and not pretending otherwise.

 

Well we both agree forcing a woman to endure nine months of pregnancy and subsequent childbirth against her will is immoral. It's also immoral for a woman (or a man) to force the opposite sex into 19 years of involuntary servitude when they never intended to create a child, while they can opt out of it for entirely elective reasons. I don't think men should be allowed to opt out after the window for the woman to have an elective abortion has passed. That's a reasonable position, unlike one which allows situations where white women can solely decide if black men will become slaves or not after they both conceived together.

You seem to be confused about the difference between unfairness in nature and unfairness in law. Just because you feel like one sex, race, orientation, whatever got a raw deal, it doesn't justify institutionalized inequality against others. It's just as indefensible as the bigotries some people deliberately direct towards those minorities.

I meant any as in a random sample every and all . . . as in "if you pulled 'any' pregnancy out of a hat of all pregnancies, it doesn't mean there's a 100% chance it's synonymous with an injury"

 

I'll try to clarify. I am not the "crowd", I am one single person. Is that clearer for you ?

I am Pro-Choice.

 

ALL pregnancies cause injury.

 

I went round and round with another poster about this and it is getting boring . So here is my stance and your garbled retorts won't change it.



I do NOT care if making men support their children is fair or not. I do NOT care.


It IS fair for those precious lives that Anti-Choicers scream about...the CHILDREN.


Men DO have the option of walking away and many do and many have the luxury of simply writing a check...they do not have to do any "hard stuff" like actually taking care of the kids.
So they are let off the hook constantly...heck, even married dads living at home get out of most of the work of hands on daily care of children.


Now, remember , I DO NOT CARE if it's "UNFAIR" that men have to support the children they created.


Now call me all the names you want to.....that can't change my mind.

 

As a practical matter, that is impossible for some. Some women will not know they are pregnant until 7-8 weeks (sometimes later), and the optimum time for abortion is before 12 weeks. Abortion gets more dangerous the further the pregnancy has advanced. So the window of time between 8 weeks and 12 weeks for notifying the potential father, allowing him time to make his decision, making the necessary appointments allowing for waiting times, is very narrow. How will you make it fair for all parties?

 

Of course I have a right to kick them out, whether I would or not comes down to a choice, exactly the same for a woman who may or may not choose an abortion. I have absolutely no obligation in that situation at all.

Firstly you would have to show that a fertilized ovum is in fact invited in.
Secondly does the fetus behave as a good guest, I think not, given the number of things it does to a females body including suppression of the local immune system and the invasion of the uterine wall I would say that if the pregnancy is not consented to then it is causing injury and as such the woman has every right to use whatever means are necessary to immediately cease those injuries up to an including deadly force. Your analogy would be more correct if it was a case of someone leaving their door unlocked and upon returning home found someone in the house, who then attacked the home owner causing injury .. can that home owner then defend themselves up to and including deadly force?

The legal sequences already exist that would give the legal cause of pregnancy solely to the fertilized ovum even of it is an incompetent 'person'

 

You are factually incorrect, no one says the fetus is an injury, what the fetus does to the woman ARE the injuries. Pregnancy is not a word to describe the fetus.

The issue is not what the fetus is but what it does.

I'd suggest doing some research away from the standard pro-life sites and actually look at the legal cases and medical research that have relevance to the issue including;

consent laws
mens rea
Actual and legal causes
Limitations on personhood
injuries caused during pregnancy

that would give you a pretty good grounding.

 

Agreed

I disagree, all pregnancies cause injury it comes down to whether the woman implies consent by accepting those injuries through to birth.. in much the same way a person gives implied consent to injury when they enter a boxing ring, you opponent has no obligation to not hurt you .. however .. that implied consent is only valid until the limit of your tolerance is reached at that point any explicit, by word or action, revoking of that consent renders it moot, should your opponent continue to injure you after you have revoked that consent they are guilty of assault. The same rule of law applies to a woman, while she remains pregnant she is giving her implied consent to the injuries caused by the fetus as soon as she explicitly, by word or action, revokes that consent then the fetus inuring her is illegal - even though the fetus cannot be charged with a crime due to it's mens rea status of incompetent it can be stopped from injuring a non consented person, furthermore the state has a remit of protecting it's people from non consented injury and as such the state should be paying for abortions.

Should the time come that we have the ability to transfer a zef (zygote/embryo/fetus) to an artificial womb then abortion will become almost a moot issue - it would still be required for certain circumstances . .however .. until that time the best and only way to, at least, reduce abortions is to have comprehensive sex education and all contraception be free.

 

I dont understand how your list (and fox hastings list too) of the " harmful effects of pregnancy" have anything to do with whether or not abortion should be legal.

 

Because any of those things when they are not consented to are forms of assault and a person may defend themselves against non consented assault up to and including deadly force, furthermore the state has a remit to help defend it's people.

It is not legal to cause injury to another person without consent.

 

Is pregnancy legally an injury (in most/all states) even if the woman chooses to remain pregnant?

 

No, in exactly the same way a tattoo is not an injury if the person consents to having one, if they don't consent then yes it is an injury.

Medically all pregnancies cause injury, legally it is based on consent.

 

Why is a tattoo an injury?

So youre saying pregnancy is an injury just because a woman doesnt want to be pregnant-even if shes a selfish jerk who doesnt want an inconvenient life?

- - - Updated - - -

I did not ask for legal or medical definitions, I am asked for a general definition.

 

You argued in the past that "consent to risk isnt consent to injury", for example-a car driver doesnt have to legally consent to the injuries of a car crash.

Seriously? Pregnancy is about a womans duty to her innocent son or daughter. A car accident has nothing in common with pregnancy. WTF? A woman wanting medical help because of car accident injuries is not being a selfish POS like a woman who wants an abortion. Fallacy of equivocation you are using.

 

Why? Are legal and medical definitions too INCONVENIENT for you? Or just too "facty" ?



Sam: """So youre saying pregnancy is an injury just because a woman doesnt want to be pregnant-even if shes a selfish jerk who doesnt want an inconvenient life? """

No, duh, pregnancy is ALWAYS an injury whether the woman consents to the pregnancy or not.


Only selfish jerks would want to control another person's life, especially a person who is doing them no harm.

 

It would be regardless of your consent, why do you find it so hard to understand that an injury is an injury regardless of consent, the difference is that if you consent to the injury no crime has been committed.

I never said anything about being "a selfish jerk who doesnt want an inconvenient life?" that is your estimation not mine, and the fact remains injuries are caused regardless of the consent, the difference is that in one case the injuries are accepted by the woman but in the other they are not.

It is not different to anything else that causes injury - if you do not consent to it then it is assault.

A general definition simply doesn't cut it when we are talking about legislation concerning abortion. You can of course feel that pregnancy is not an injury on a personal level but that does not equate to a reason to ban abortion.

 

WTF has that to do with the current discussion, why do you consistently try to change what is being discussed, and if you actually read what I have written I am not using equivocation I am using a comparison in order to try to get you to understand. Furthermore it wouldn't be equivocation anyway.

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

I think what you are trying to say is it that you think it is False Equivalence which it is not, the underlying issue on everything I post is based on sound legal and medical fact.

 

The onus would be on her to make a good faith effort to notify him as soon as possible after discovering they had conceived. The onus would be on him to respond within a specified time frame (which would not impede her ability to have an elective abortion) if he wants to opt out. Any disputes or exceptional circumstances would need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis like any other legal matter.

 

Yes, I got that you're one single person, but you're not the only person who holds these paradoxical views. So you're just one example of the group of people I was referring to.

You're really not, though . . . in the same way many people who claim to be "Pro-Life" actually aren't if they hold views which are completely inconsistent and incompatible with it.

 

YOU MAY think what you like (however erroneous) but since Pro-choice refers to abortion and not to all the rights of everyone in the world I am definitely Pro-Choice.

 

If that's the case the anti-abortionists can claim Pro-life refers to abortion and not all the rights of everyone in the world so they are definitely "Pro-Life" even if they're for capital punishment and war.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Not for you, not for them.

 

Remove all the restrictions on abortion, including funding ones and you might just have a reasonable idea.

Personally I have no problem what so ever for a man to revoke his parental obligations to child support, somehow though I can't see it happening purely on financial grounds, the state is not going to pay for every father who revokes his parental obligations, for one the voters would not stand for the massive increase in taxes to fund the welfare bill (especially republicans)

When it comes down to it the cost of abortion is far, far less than 18 years of state funded child support.

 

I just don't get you. You are hallucinating that I speak for, and represent, all Pro-Choicers or set their polices and you , Your Royal Highness, you set all the rules for everyone........you are frankly hilarious and delusional.......

 

Glad that I amused you. I hope it brightened your day (seriously).
I never claimed you represent all Pro-Choicers. On the contrary... I was referring to a subset of people who call themsrlves Pro-Choice, which you led me to believe you were a part of based on what you told me earlier your views were. I hope that clears things up.

Sincerely,
Your Royal Highness