I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

reply to post by charles1952


ATS said they will unban (postban) me when I took some days to cool off. Never happened, had to ask for the unban after abandoning the site for that time and wanted to contribute to a topic. I admit I finally asked for the ban because in my eyes, there was much bias from the staff and unfair handling when it comes to post deleting... A thread title worded "Men: You don´t own any rights to my reproduction organs!" If I remember right...

Its not in my interests that this thread becomes like the one I mentioned but I feel, with certain peoples attitude it could. This thread is not unimportant, maybe I got my wording wrong. You did a good start with your OP. I just feel like this is one of the hottest topics here.

Edit: No hat to take off for me, as the ban was also fair in some ways.

Thread title was
"Men's rights to Women's reproductive organs - You don't have any." Even more provoking then I remembered....

My last undeleted statement was

Its not about yours, it´s about a life. Its not about you´r right to kill it. You have it. But OP should consider that she´s deciding over two other life. That´s the point and nothing else. Just because you have the right, doesn´t make it right.

And I would say that anytime again.

reply to post by charles1952





Your quote:- "If anyone is at fault it is the mother, right? I mean, she is the one who

decided to have sex and then got pregnant."


Now how I see that is yes, she may have decided to have sex and got pregnant ... but

then without the mans 'input' she couldn't have? ... after all he could have refused?

Surely 50% of the blame lies with him?


I once had a boyfriend who's views on the female sex I much admired, When men got

together and when inevitably discussions turned to women who were considered 'easy'

or 'slags' or 'whatever' ... he was always quick to say she would never be able to be any one

of those things without the input of men!!

reply to post by Quadrivium


Straw man, and also poor.
The thread is about why abortion can/not be discussed logically - not morally, so I will point out my posts clearly for you. As you seem to have trouble discerning the two.
Note I will also add my viable solution again and my point about why logic in humanity needs morals to avoid the 'dark path'. Which you missed and led you to attempt reveal my Nazi tendencies through your false dichotomy.

Its because logic lies outside ethics. The issue is really a larger one when perceived logically.

To add to that, its the morals v logic thing, they dont always play nicely together, and the OP specified logic in the title. So the poster you responded to was not using logic in this case. In fact that is really the reason why abortion cant be discussed logically, due to the juxtaposition it holds with the moral discussion. A good example of a divergence of morals and logic.

Logic is a far harsher mistress however.

The specifics in the title said 'logic' so I used logic.

So killing that unwanted living thing is the logical solution. Logic is not here to be nice.

Logic is too cruel sometimes, fettering it with morality is part of what makes us human. That allows for things like my personal solution which I have mentioned twice which, while not being perfect, greatly reduces the problems of both sides while still allowing for choice via educated decisions.

ETA :- Basically it can be discussed logically, just most people find the logical answers morally objectionable and there lies the dilemma.

Solution : with emphasis

My personal solution encompassing both moral and logical points is the prevention of the unwanted living thing in the first place by educating people on how to not get into the situation if they dont want to. I apply this to both genders liberally, and it would work too.

Please let me know if you wish me to re-post any other posts you may have missed.

ETA :- And yes, using pure logic those people would be dead too. There are no morals with logic, no ethics, its brutal.




.... I even got one of Spock's most famous logic quotes in there.

I am by no means an overly pessimistic individual and I love the life I created and continue to create for myself, but in general I think that an unborn child is more harmed by the decision to create him and bring him into this world than by the decision to end that possibility. I think that people who have contemplated the nature of existence, without perceiving it in a conditioned, mechanical manner might see things similarly.

charles1952

I think the Church's position, which I mentioned earlier, is consistent. It is all right to perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother as long as the primary intention is to save the mother and not kill the child. If the child dies because of the procedure, that's not considered a moral wrong since that wasn't the purpose of the procedure.

But, here's my question. What if a woman gets pregnant, then finds out she has cancer. With chemotherapy, she has an 80 percent chance of surviving. Without chemo, she has only a 5 percent chance, and will most likely die within 12-18 months. The chemo will most definitely kill the otherwise healthy fetus insider her. Why doesn't the Church say that she should she be forced to go without the chemo and carry the fetus to term, even if it means her almost certain death? Why does the Church think that the woman has more right to life than the fetus?

Ok, I can't speak for the pro-life movement, but if you want a consistent position, it is never acceptable to perform a procedure with the primary intent of killing an unborn child.

What if the procedure DOES have the primary intent of killing the unborn child, in order to save the mother? What if the mother has a condition that means her certain death if she tries to carry the baby to term, so the doctor performs an abortion? An abortion is a procedure that has no other intent, other than to kill an unborn fetus.

reply to post by eletheia


Well, that was actually my quote, and I was being a wee bit sarcastic there. I was wondering why the Church sometimes considered the woman's rights over the fetus, and sometimes considered the fetus' rights over the woman.

charles1952
Here is where I start having questions. I think we have to agree that it is a human life, I mean it's not a corn life, or a beetle life, or a cow life. So it seems you're saying that a human life gets protected by our laws when it's born. Many people agree with you.

I would say it is more accurately a potential human life. The same way as a single sperm or single egg is a potential human life. Those who classify conception as the beginning of a human life tend to ignore this fact. Think of all the potential lives that have been lost through the act of masturbation and protected sex.

So I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you might think. The problem for me is that it's not murder if the mother kills the child, but it is murder if someone else does. That to me is illogical.

I certainly don't view this topic as clear cut in the moral sense nor legally as there are different laws regarding abortion around the world.

As for the examples given, I agree with you that they are illogical and inconsistent.

UnaChispa
Sorry to butt in here, but I have a question for pro-choicers. How many abortions do you think a woman should be allowed to have?

Sincerely,

I would answer that question with another question: how many times should a man be allowed to have sex again after he has gotten a woman pregnant with an unwanted child?

I've always wondered, if it's okay to force a woman to bear an unwanted child, why isn't it okay to force all boys to have vasectomies by puberty age, then have them be forced to apply for permission to have it reversed, only after they have proven they are capable of being a good father? Of course to be fair, the woman should then also be forced to prove that she is capable of being a good mother before she is allowed to be pregnant. I mean, as long as it's okay to force people to do something .... we might as well go all the way with it.

kaylaluv
reply to post by eletheia

 

Well, that was actually my quote, and I was being a wee bit sarcastic there. I was wondering why the Church sometimes considered the woman's rights over the fetus, and sometimes considered the fetus' rights over the woman.

Sorry going back I see it was your "quote" but as it was in Charles's 'print type' I made

that error. I was in fact replying to his post in general with my views anyway

charles1952
Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

No no and more no. This law was written, passed and signed to create this exact point to begin with. Written, passed and signed by people like you i might add. It was designed purposefully to create ambiguity in a space where there wasn't any before. The entire reason this subject cannot and never will be talked about rationally is people like you have decided you are right and that you should be injecting yourself into other peoples personal decisions without bearing any consequence or responsibility for doing so.

The entirety of difference between pro-life and pro-choice?

Pro-life: I believe abortion is wrong and because I believe it to be so it must be so for everyone else.

Pro-choice: I may or may not believe that abortion is wrong for me personally. But I think other people are capable of deciding this for themselves.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Deciding for themselves, the unborn and the men who would be father.
Don´t pack me in a drawer now. Just because you have the right, does not make it right.

Well, main law that I can think of, where abortion is legal, is that the father should have the right to sign a legal paper removing all liability for the child, though I suspect that already exists (in places where abortion does). Though in a way it is unfortunate for the father, since it is still his child.

Now if abortion is legal, while killing an unborn child is considered illegal, then I suppose you can charge the father for murder if he causes an abortion when the mother doesn't want one, and the mother can also be charged for murder if she does an abortion when the father doesn't want one.

The reason abortion, contraception and the like cannot be discussed logically is because we want the world overpopulated such that another world war breaks out.

reply to post by charles1952

I wouldn't be comfortable trying to defend that unscientific position

The thing that drove me away from the pro-life side and into considering myself pro-choice is that I would not feel comfortable trying to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. We're talking about a pretty unique situation, one that I, as a man, cannot relate to. A fetus, up to a point, is a pretty uncomplicated thing, it doesn't really have needs, it doesn't ask for a raise in its allowance and it doesn't need 50,000 dollars tuition to get a decent job. A child is a lifetime commitment and even if you're going to put it up for adoption someone, somewhere has to take responsibility and care for this child for a good portion of its life.

So while its still just a bunch of multiplying cells there is a window of opportunity, as dark as that sounds, to avoid bringing an unwanted child into the world.

Like I said though women are in a pretty unique situation and no amount of legal authority is going to (or should be able to) force them to bring children into the world so the best we can do is make the procedure safe and available. As a species we are too immature with our reproduction but maybe someday our civilization will reach some equilibrium and contraception will be so universal that unwanted pregnancy will be a thing of the past, but until then we need to make it safe and legal for women to get abortions.

UnaChispa
Sorry to butt in here, but I have a question for pro-choicers. How many abortions do you think a woman should be allowed to have?

Sincerely,

As many as she needs. Why do you care? How would it impact you?

windword
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Birth control is an insurance policy, when there is a birth control failure, the women or the couple, have recourse. Abortion is a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. A woman shouldn't be punished for having sex by being forced to carry and birth a baby.

That's bull.. Birth control is NOT an insurance policy.. An insurance policy transfers the risk to another entity. Your risk of getting pregnant is not being transferred to someone else's responsibility when taking birth control. It's still YOUR responsibility. It seems as if you want to redefine the biological nature of sexual reproduction and redefine it as having no biological reproductive action at all. You simply define sex as a pleasure vehicle for your own self indulgence. You refuse to admit to yourself, sex is defined as both a pleasurable activity AND a reproductive activity. You cannot separate the two. You can't continue to live self defining your own existence. Just because you believe sex is only a pleasure activity doesn't make that reality.. The risk of getting pregnant is ALWAYS there and only a reckless person would have sex without thinking about the repercussions. You're like an investor that wants to invest money but cries when they lose it. You took the risks, it's your own responsibility, now act like a damn adult and own up to your responsibilities..

BardingTheBard

RealWoman
There is no double standard. The woman gets pregnant the man does not. This is not double standard. This is biology 101. The time for the male to have the pregnancy decision is BEFORE he drops his pants. He also has the option of wearing a condom or even getting a vasectomy. He made the decision when he dropped his drawers and chose not to use a condom. He also can insist that his partner use a spermicide and going so far as to apply it himself.

If he willingly engaged in sex, the answer is no, he willingly GAVE her the property. If HE took no precautions regardless of what she told him, he is a fool.

If it is important to her... then the time for the woman to make the "I expect help if I get pregnant" decision, and have the conversation with her partner, is BEFORE she drops her pants as well.

If she willingly engaged in sex and hasn't taken precautions for ensuring she is doing so with a partner who has agreed to continue being a partner in the case of a pregnancy... the she has the ONLY property she has a right to expectation of.

"It's my body". Yes it is... take responsibility for it. The same as I have to take were I to voluntarily allow myself to be injected with chemicals which are liable to cause a new life form to grow off of me.

If the man is expected to make the pregnancy decision before sex in every circumstance (something I do agree with) then the woman is expected to make the "what will I do if I get pregnant" decision before sex as well. If this means not having sex with someone because she can't rely on them... or going ahead and risking it... it's her choice... and it was her precautions or lack that will determine how it will go.

If there has been an agreement to support in case of pregnancy and then the man leaves... that is awful and should be dealt with. If there has been an agreement to prevent/abort and then she doesn't... that too should be dealt with.

It's the person's life... the person's body... the person's choice. Have sex with someone they can't rely on and expect the law with the guns/prison to force them to... or don't and wait until someone that can be relied upon comes along.

edit on 14-9-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)

Again, another "how dare a woman" have sex rant.... I simply applied to same platitudes yapped at women to the male side of the equation. Did you not get that?