ForumsWEPRis abortion ok?

869 82473
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
2,325

Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree

Please debate

  • 869 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,902 posts
21,110

I fully agree that a woman who has been raped (not just women can be raped) has the choice of whether she wants to take measures to prevent/abort a pregnancy, but I don't think it "should be" as an absolute statement.

I just think it's a bad idea, mostly psychologically speaking. But I didn't mean that it should be enforced; the woman should still have the right to not take any measures*. This could be discussed during medical and psychological sessions following the rape.

*This also means that, answering to your other question, a man has no right to interfere with that decision. I'm personally not sure how I feel about this, but it is the logical conclusion of the above. I definitely agree with FishPreferred that, at least in cases of consensual sex where the child was conceived against the will of the man, he has no responsibility to pay anything.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

She should not be permitted to extort childcare payments as a result, but I would think she has free reign, otherwise.

The not having the father be responsible for child support is the easiest conclusion that I think most people can agree would be a sensible response. I think the hardest part of the question is whether a man has ownership rights of his genetic material - and by extension, whether a woman does too.

Honestly I'm stumped. On the surface I want to say, "Yeah, of course they do!" but then you get into the whole subject of invading another person's body to make that happen, and hey, it gets kinda messed up there. Looking at it from the opposite perspective, would a woman who had one of her eggs stolen and transplanted into another woman that was fertilized by another man have the legal right to have that woman have an abortion?

*This also means that, answering to your other question, a man has no right to interfere with that decision.

Even if the male was the victim and the female the perpetrator? I can't put it into words but there's definitely something about this hypothetical that I'm in opposition to. It does not sound correct to me that a person should be able to do that. The problem is I don't think anyone should be able to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. Perhaps this is just one of those lesser vs greater evil things.

Maybe the best response would be to make it so that, after the child was born, parental rights were only extended to the father and not the mother if he wishes, so that even if the woman who raped him decided to take the pregnancy to term, the child wouldn't be legally considered hers.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,864 posts
18,680

Even if the male was the victim and the female the perpetrator? I can't put it into words but there's definitely something about this hypothetical that I'm in opposition to. It does not sound correct to me that a person should be able to do that.


That's a separate issue altogether. The woman, in this case, abuses the man and, as a result, becomes pregnant. We can probably agree that the initial abuse is immoral and unjustifiable. She should not be able to do that, but what she does with the foetus is within her right.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

What if a woman lies to a man or purposefully undermines contraception with the intention of getting pregnant? What if a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself? Would the man have any legal right to have that woman receive an abortion?


She should still have the right to her body..but opt out options for men in regards to the parenthood should be an option for equality.

In regards to 'if a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

There's so much that this article talks about that's messed up. Three choice quotes.

"If for some reason they ever found me guilty of raping him, my whole career would be completely destroyed, I'd be put in jail and the children would go in foster care," she said. "To destroy my entire family for the simple thing that he didn't want to pay child support, that's a very selfish thing to do."

"There is a case that deals with this. It's not exactly like Kris' case, but similar. It involves a 34-year-old man from Alabama who passed out at a party. A woman had sex with him while he was unconscious and she got pregnant. The court ordered him to pay child support."

"Experts say it is physically possible for a man to be raped by a woman, or, put another way, to get an erection without wanting to have sex."

This is starting to veer from being about abortion though.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,872 posts
4,445

The US government says murdering a human being isn't ok.
If the US government says abortion is ok, then they are saying that an unborn baby isn't a human being.
At what point then does the government get to "decide" when a baby becomes a human being? If the baby can be legally murdered after it comes out of the uterus, then it doesn't turn human during the process of born in their minds. How long after childbirth does it take for a baby to "turn" human? Until it's old enough to vote for liberal politicians?

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,902 posts
21,110

The US government says murdering a human being isn't ok.
If the US government says abortion is ok, then they are saying that an unborn baby isn't a human being.
At what point then does the government get to "decide" when a baby becomes a human being? If the baby can be legally murdered after it comes out of the uterus, then it doesn't turn human during the process of born in their minds. How long after childbirth does it take for a baby to "turn" human? Until it's old enough to vote for liberal politicians?

*birth
You are either being ignorant about the terms of abortion, or strawmanning heavily. I am not aware of anyone who supports the killing of a baby (a baby is in my view defined as such since birth, not before). Which by the way would not be an abortion at all anymore, since you are not aborting the process of gestation.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,872 posts
4,445

So you're saying it's only alright to kill a baby inside the womb but not outside of the womb?

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,980

So you're saying it's only alright to kill a baby inside the womb but not outside of the womb?


actually, a baby is only one when it was near birth, around 7-9 months of gestation. so before it wasn't a baby, rather a sort of "baby candidate" (fetus). so abortion before that would not be killing a live baby, it would be like killing a live fetus. so you ARE strawmanning heavily
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,872 posts
4,445

so you ARE strawmanning heavily

No, you are

So you're saying abortion is alright if you kill the unborn child before the 7 months mark?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,902 posts
21,110

No, you are

He really wasn't.

Abortion is alright during a medically/biologically reasonable period where the foetus is not very developed yet. Ideally where he has no consciousness. That can be up to three months or so.

So in the end, the politicians might decide whether they agree or not, but the mark until which abortion is ok should be based on a medical opinion, so I see no reason for any "government control" talk.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,307 posts
17,925

The US government says murdering a human being isn't ok.
If the US government says abortion is ok, then they are saying that an unborn baby isn't a human being.
At what point then does the government get to "decide" when a baby becomes a human being? If the baby can be legally murdered after it comes out of the uterus, then it doesn't turn human during the process of born in their minds. How long after childbirth does it take for a baby to "turn" human? Until it's old enough to vote for liberal politicians?


Just to clarify: no one doubts that a foetus is a human. It's not about its status as a human, but its status as a person. Or perhaps more properly: in virtue of what does a foetus have (or lack) a right to life? And another important question is how and/or why do the rights of a foetus outweigh the rights of the mother? I think this latter question is much more interesting.
But the terminology confusion here doesn't affect your argument, so that's okay. In other words - you're not strawmanning (also neither is kenneth).

I am not aware of anyone who supports the killing of a baby (a baby is in my view defined as such since birth, not before).


Interestingly, Michael Tooley has just such a view. Just to clarify, he doesn't support infanticide - he just considers it to be morally permissible. This is one of the consequences in trying to develop criteria for personhood. As a result of Tooley's criteria, infants don't count as persons. Mary Ann Warren's criteria lead to a similar result, though she isn't quite as happy to bite the infanticide bullet as Tooley is.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,980

No, you are


Prove that i was strawmanning heavily, tough guy.

So you're saying abortion is alright if you kill the unborn child before the 7 months mark?


Like i said, it was NOT a child or a baby before 7 months. it is a fetus. a fetus IS alive, but had no consciousness, quite akin to a baby chicken in an egg only aging before 20 days. So, i dare you to prove that i was strawmanning using your facts, tough guy.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,902 posts
21,110

Interestingly, Michael Tooley has just such a view. Just to clarify, he doesn't support infanticide - he just considers it to be morally permissible. This is one of the consequences in trying to develop criteria for personhood. As a result of Tooley's criteria, infants don't count as persons. Mary Ann Warren's criteria lead to a similar result, though she isn't quite as happy to bite the infanticide bullet as Tooley is.

Well, the thought is not new; there have been/are cultures where babies don't count much, and only after some arbitrarily chosen age/happening/ritual do they become persons, or get a soul, or whatever. But it's interesting to see that some consider the same after more in-depth consideration.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,872 posts
4,445

So you're saying that 7 months is when a fetus becomes a person that you don't kill? How do you prove that it has been exactly 7 months?

Anyway on the strawman thing, your squabbling seems easy to counter-refute or whatever. BTY, Moe's response is much more appropriate than yours.

Bye

Showing 811-825 of 869