Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 19610 times)

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
Why does the woman get a choice in being responsible or not for the child but the man doesn't? It's a double standard. By you standards the woman can have an abortion for economic reasons, but a man cannot choose to disengage from this commitment for economic reasons.
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same.

The situation for men and women during pregnancy is not the same. This is why women get to make the choice during the period of time when a fetus is growing inside them.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867

It doesn't really matter what you and I believe. A pregnant woman can make the decision terminate the pregnancy regardless of legality either through a dangerous illegal method or visiting a place where the procedure is legal. This has been happening for 1000s of years.

Your moral argument is: the developing baby is a human and has rights no one has the right can infringe upon.

The other side of the argument is: a woman has autonomy over her body.

Lets use an analogy because people like those here:

Hindus believe cows are sacred. You can't eat beef, you can't kill a cow, you aren't even supposed to mess with a cow. They are sacred and you can be subject to capital punishment for killing a cow. Let's say you have a party and your Hindu friend brings a cow that runs into your house. He leaves, but this cow stays behind. It is wrecking your house, eating your food, ruffs you up some, and costs you money and there is absolutely no way to force this cow out of your house without killing it. You ask your Hindu buddy what to do and say you are going to have to kill it. He looks at you in shock and says with 100% sincerity it is a sin worthy of death if you do that.

He tells you to just deal with it: after nine months it will gore you up the butt, but then it will leave an you can give it to your neighbor. He warns you that he and most of the people you know are going to wonder what the hell is the matter with you though for refusing to take care of the cow though.     

Now it is a stupid analogy (and I probably offended some Indians, sorry), but you and I feel the same way about a cow as many people feel about a fetus. There are 100M people in India that would tell you tuff luck; cow's house now. You can argue that you have a right to remove (kill) the cow because it's your house and it doesn't belong there and you are really opposed to getting gored up the butt. Your feelings about this don't matter and you should have been more responsible in keeping the cow out of your house during that fun party.

For the other side of the argument: I 100% agree. The woman does have autonomy over her body. The fetus is not her body though. Like I said before, it has it's own unique DNA, feet, hands etc. If what you say is true (that the fetus is just another part of the body) does it mean she has 4 feet? And two unique form of DNA? If not, what best explains it?

A good example is a tumor. The tumor is growing in the body but it's also a part of the body. What separates this and the fetus? DNA. The DNA of the tumor is mutated from the mother's dna. The fetus has unique DNA.

Many, many, many Hindu Indians eat beef. I know not a single person (of any religion) who eats people but plenty who have no problem with beef.

I have never met an Indian person (and I've met a ton born in the US and not) who gets offended if I eat a hamburger.

By the way, how did the cow get through the front door? :o

I have an Indian friend that is pretty touchy about the subject. There is a large percentage of the 1B Indian population that will not eat meat, more that won't eat beef, and a small group who will kill you for doing it, so...

I guess that is what I am getting at. The developing baby has separate DNA, hands, feet etc. and is sacred to you and is afforded all the rights endowed by the creator. My friend can explain exactly why hurting a cow is even worse than hurting a person. Your morality and his are based off of culture, upbringing, religion etc. Personally I am against ending a baby's life, but if that damn cow gets into my house I'm going to deal with it regardless of what my friend thinks about it.

I am not going to let his morality dictate my decision and I wouldn't force my morality on him, or a woman.   

There are a lot of small groups that are irrational - that doesn't make their opinions valid :P

Even the Indian friends I have who don't eat beef, have no problem with me eating it.

Some people like Peter Singer think that animals have just as many rights as people. I disagree, obviously. I'll also say that if God doesn't exist, the the "unalienable Rights" that are endowed by the Creator also don't exist.

If that is one's premise, I see no reason to trust one's conscience (since it doesn't transcend anyone but the self) or to believe in something like human rights. So, the weak should die off and the strong survive. That's it. Otherwise, you're harming the evolutionary process for no purpose and the species gets weaker as a result.

Again, I'm not forcing my morality anymore than I would be forcing my morality on someone who is trying to rape someone. I'm simply trying to stop an event from occurring. I'm not forcing her to get pregnant or give birth - her body is doing that itself.
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Why does the woman get a choice in being responsible or not for the child but the man doesn't? It's a double standard. By you standards the woman can have an abortion for economic reasons, but a man cannot choose to disengage from this commitment for economic reasons.
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same.

The situation for men and women during pregnancy is not the same. This is why women get to make the choice during the period of time when a fetus is growing inside them.

No one is denying that the woman should make the choice during pregnancy. She calls the shots. If she chooses to continue, she can pay for the baby. If she doesn't want the child (like the man) she can terminate. The man never agreed to having the child - just the intercourse. The woman is agreeing to have the child and the intercourse. It's "her body, her choice". She can shoulder the "burden" of her choices.

You want to give the woman full authority over the pregnancy but not the outcome of that pregnancy (her decision). That's a double standard.
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.
Paul

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1423
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

Nonsense as this would also declare you not the legal father/guardian and take away all rights associated with that. Most father's (by choice) will want that title and associated rights.

Also, if nothing is written down and you start acting as the father this would be taken by the court as an admission of acceptance.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?



Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

So you bring up the most obscure and extreme example possible and try to use it as a blanket for all policy?

The first sentence is quite laughable tbh. "If her pregnancy is the trigger." What does that even mean. You're making assumption on human psychology about a hypothetical situation and you expect anyone to take this argument seriously?

One.) If the man is abusive he will go to jail. End of story.
Two.) Plenty of facilities exist for women to escape abusive relationships where they and their children/babies/or unborn children will be taken care of.
Three.) I'll come up with something equally as dumb....Maybe an abusive man finds out his wife had been buying things he doesn't approve of. And as a result this is the trigger that sets him off. So to make everyone safe, lets make it illegal for women to buy anything to prevent abusive men from being triggered.
Core: BRK | MSFT | GOOG | RTX | MSGS | TPL | WFC | USB | PNC | BAC | VZ | VNO | PCYO | PLNT | ESPO | HACK

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

So you bring up the most obscure and extreme example possible and try to use it as a blanket for all policy?

The first sentence is quite laughable tbh. "If her pregnancy is the trigger." What does that even mean. You're making assumption on human psychology about a hypothetical situation and you expect anyone to take this argument seriously?

One.) If the man is abusive he will go to jail. End of story.
Two.) Plenty of facilities exist for women to escape abusive relationships where they and their children/babies/or unborn children will be taken care of.
Three.) I'll come up with something equally as dumb....Maybe an abusive man finds out his wife had been buying things he doesn't approve of. And as a result this is the trigger that sets him off. So to make everyone safe, lets make it illegal for women to buy anything to prevent abusive men from being triggered.

There are a lot of people bringing up extreme situations to justify their arguments.

You are presuming these women feel they have the agency to get out of these situations. There is a reason why these facilities have to advertise so much and outreach to woman in these bad situations and yet many of them still feel they canít leave. Is it logical? Is it rational? Perhaps for you with your life experience but perhaps not for them.

I donít have any personal experience with abusive relationships. I try to empathize with why people stay in them and itís really hard to understand. Perhaps, if you have more experience with them, you can enlighten us?

Plus the context in which we were discussing banning abortion, Paul, mentioned that he is pro castration for those that donít pay child support. If you want to give incentive to a narcissistic abusive man for making sure that a baby requiring child support (he knows he canít pay) is never born, castration is probably in the top 3.

omagh

  • Lifetime Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 360
22 pages of hatred and posing...yawn!  Now go on and get off my lawn.

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
stahleyp's only point I agree with is that men that don't want a child should not have to pay with it as they have no control over abortion.
I disagree fundamentally, but ignore that aspect, this essentially gets rid of child support. Anyone who doesn't want to pay it (which I presume is a good portion) can just claim they wanted an abortion but the mother didn't. So from a practical point, it opens up a huge can of worms.

One should choose sexual partners wisely then.

Kind of gets back to my agency question.

Please explain in more detail.

Do you think that women have and always think they have 100% agency in all of their decisions?

It sounds like you do based on your arguments but I'm trying to understand your perspective.

No. I don't think anyone has 100% agency in all of their decisions.

So if a woman in an abusive relationship and the pregnancy is the trigger for her to consider getting an abortion and exit said relationship, do you think instead she should be tied to the abuser for the rest of her and the childís life?

I would argue some of the scenarios you present where the woman wants to abort but the man doesnít may include these scenarios where the man doesnít necessarily care about the woman or the child but he just wants to stay in control of her.

Is it the fault of the fetus? No, it isnít but isnít it also understandable why a woman would never want to bring a child into that situation. In some cases, the opposite might be true where the man will hurt or kill the woman when she tells him sheís pregnant. Then two people die instead of one. Is that a better way to protect life?

I don't quite understand. If the pregnancy is the trigger to exit the relationship (I think that's what you meant?), then it's reasonable to assume she the reason for the trigger is to have a better life for her child. Abortion wouldn't make sense here?

If he kills the fetus due to not wanting to pay child support, we have a proper solution for him. It will ensure that he doesn't have to pay it so he should be happy...but he won't be paying for anything else either since he wouldn't be alive.
Paul