Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

abortion

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:30:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes. The man should not feel guilty by the fact that someone he impregnated wants to kill an unborn human being that belongs to him, too. If she does not want the child due to her possible stupidity (e.g., sex without safety measures), then there is the option to let the man take care of the child, or other people who want to do so.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:32:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

YES! ...well, they should be allowed opt out of paying child support.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:33:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:32:10 AM, badger wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

YES! ...well, they should be allowed opt out of paying child support.

and i really do think this! but i suppose i can see why it might have a negative impact on society as a whole... but i'm only looking out for number one!
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:35:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:32:10 AM, badger wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

YES! ...well, they should be allowed opt out of paying child support.

they lol.. we! i'm a man, i swear :)
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:35:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:35:09 AM, badger wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:32:10 AM, badger wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

YES! ...well, they should be allowed opt out of paying child support.

they lol.. we! i'm a man, i swear :)

i'd be willing to show cock to prove it...?
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:50:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

If we don't... and we don't... why are we therefore required to pay for kids whose creation we never approved and over which we have no rights?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:51:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:50:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

If we don't... and we don't... why are we therefore required to pay for kids whose creation we never approved and over which we have no rights?

is this that saying it fancier thing you're doing again? :)
signature
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:53:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:51:05 AM, badger wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:50:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:21:22 AM, carrotandproud wrote:
should men have a say in whether or not women have abortions?

If we don't... and we don't... why are we therefore required to pay for kids whose creation we never approved and over which we have no rights?

is this that saying it fancier thing you're doing again? :)

Yea sorry.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 12:04:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 11:30:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
Yes. The man should not feel guilty by the fact that someone he impregnated wants to kill an unborn human being that belongs to him, too. If she does not want the child due to her possible stupidity (e.g., sex without safety measures), then there is the option to let the man take care of the child, or other people who want to do so.

This is a sort of a moral catch-22 here, but I have a hard time justifying how I could be given the authority to force a woman to go through the incredible process of carrying a child for nine months simply because of my philisophical beliefs. My theories about social order revolve around the absence of authority, not the imposition of it. Any system which would so obviously invoke force on someone has to be thoroughly scrutinized.

One could argue that I am also only acting on my own philisophical beliefs, but like I said, one answer requires force and one does not. Considering a baby part of the mother's body definitely solves most of the moral dilemmas surrounding the subject.
no comment
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 12:30:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 12:04:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/13/2011 11:30:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
Yes. The man should not feel guilty by the fact that someone he impregnated wants to kill an unborn human being that belongs to him, too. If she does not want the child due to her possible stupidity (e.g., sex without safety measures), then there is the option to let the man take care of the child, or other people who want to do so.

This is a sort of a moral catch-22 here, but I have a hard time justifying how I could be given the authority to force a woman to go through the incredible process of carrying a child for nine months simply because of my philisophical beliefs.
The pain she suffers can be similar to the pain you would suffer by feeling guilty about aborting a child. It is also philosophical.

My theories about social order revolve around the absence of authority, not the imposition of it. Any system which would so obviously invoke force on someone has to be thoroughly scrutinized.

One could argue that I am also only acting on my own philisophical beliefs, but like I said, one answer requires force and one does not. Considering a baby part of the mother's body definitely solves most of the moral dilemmas surrounding the subject.
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 1:48:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 12:04:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
Considering a baby part of the mother's body definitely solves most of the moral dilemmas surrounding the subject.

Yeah, but the baby isn't part of the mother's body so that's a moot point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 1:52:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
Irrelevant to my point.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 1:55:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 1:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
Irrelevant to my point.

Not irrelevant. Your options are: Reject your criterion and find a new one. Find some way in which the criterion doesn't imply that's okay. Concede that you are just that tyrannical. Or, be a coward and evade.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:00:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 1:55:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
Irrelevant to my point.

Not irrelevant. Your options are: Reject your criterion and find a new one. Find some way in which the criterion doesn't imply that's okay. Concede that you are just that tyrannical. Or, be a coward and evade.
What are you babbling about? I am saying that it is not only the female who has to go through various consequences by giving birth to an unwanted child. If she chooses to abort it, the male can very well be depressed and go through other consequences due to the fact that he feels guilty, or anything similar to that. Therefore, it is not only the female who should have a say in abortion. Compromise should always be an option. An unborn child is not her body.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:06:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:00:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:55:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
Irrelevant to my point.

Not irrelevant. Your options are: Reject your criterion and find a new one. Find some way in which the criterion doesn't imply that's okay. Concede that you are just that tyrannical. Or, be a coward and evade.
What are you babbling about? I am saying that it is not only the female who has to go through various consequences by giving birth to an unwanted child. If she chooses to abort it, the male can very well be depressed and go through other consequences due to the fact that he feels guilty, or anything similar to that. Therefore, it is not only the female who should have a say in abortion. Compromise should always be an option. An unborn child is not her body.

It's a foreign object in her body. I feel guilty that you exist, should you have to compromise your existence?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:09:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:06:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2011 2:00:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:55:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
Irrelevant to my point.

Not irrelevant. Your options are: Reject your criterion and find a new one. Find some way in which the criterion doesn't imply that's okay. Concede that you are just that tyrannical. Or, be a coward and evade.
What are you babbling about? I am saying that it is not only the female who has to go through various consequences by giving birth to an unwanted child. If she chooses to abort it, the male can very well be depressed and go through other consequences due to the fact that he feels guilty, or anything similar to that. Therefore, it is not only the female who should have a say in abortion. Compromise should always be an option. An unborn child is not her body.

It's a foreign object in her body.
Which she has to deal with accordingly to whom the object affects the most (i.e., the one the seed comes from).

I feel guilty that you exist, should you have to compromise your existence?
No, just as much as an unborn child should not be killed due to the fact that the female who bears him does not want to take responsibility.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:13:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:09:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 2:06:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2011 2:00:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:55:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 1:50:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doesn't matter. Consequences are there for both parties.
If that's the criterion for good laws, then why not have a law for the execution of any two people who kiss?
Irrelevant to my point.

Not irrelevant. Your options are: Reject your criterion and find a new one. Find some way in which the criterion doesn't imply that's okay. Concede that you are just that tyrannical. Or, be a coward and evade.
What are you babbling about? I am saying that it is not only the female who has to go through various consequences by giving birth to an unwanted child. If she chooses to abort it, the male can very well be depressed and go through other consequences due to the fact that he feels guilty, or anything similar to that. Therefore, it is not only the female who should have a say in abortion. Compromise should always be an option. An unborn child is not her body.

It's a foreign object in her body.
Which she has to deal with accordingly to whom the object affects the most (i.e., the one the seed comes from).

No, that's not the one it affects the most. It affects her most. Because it affects her in reality, and it affects the father only in your imagination and in some unjust statutes.

I feel guilty that you exist, should you have to compromise your existence?
No, just as much as an unborn child should not be killed due to the fact that the female who bears him does not want to take responsibility.
Not analogous, your existence imposes no tangible burdens on me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:17:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You know, I was once told that because I'm a virgin I'm NOT allowed having an opinion on abortion. Of course, this is absurd, considering I'm a woman and these things will directly affect me sooner or later. With that said, I'm not sure what that same person thought about men having a say, but I figure it was something similar. Anyway, of course a man should have an opinion on it. It affects him as much as it does the woman, considering it would be his responsibility to look after the child along with the mother. Getting pregnant is a huge thing for both partners.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:20:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:13:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, that's not the one it affects the most. It affects her most.
I meant besides her. And no, it does not necessarily affects her the most.

Because it affects her in reality, and it affects the father only in your imagination and in some unjust statutes.
What kind of reality? If a man looks forward to having a child, feels very bad about abortions, how do you think he would feel if his wife/girlfriend aborted a child without his permission? Do you think that is acceptable? Do you think it is unrealistic that a man feels guilty about having his unborn child murdered?

Not analogous, your existence imposes no tangible burdens on me.
Which is why I have no need of compromising about my existence. And what is not analogous? Your argument is not analogous in the first place.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:17:45 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
You know, I was once told that because I'm a virgin I'm NOT allowed having an opinion on abortion. Of course, this is absurd, considering I'm a woman and these things will directly affect me sooner or later. With that said, I'm not sure what that same person thought about men having a say, but I figure it was something similar. Anyway, of course a man should have an opinion on it. It affects him as much as it does the woman, considering it would be his responsibility to look after the child along with the mother. Getting pregnant is a huge thing for both partners.
Yes, but it means little when you say that to the libertarian who ignores consequences that do not affect the physical part of the body. You have to bring science into an argument, not only morality. Then you just smash their idiotic ideas of "reality" and "physical damage."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:27:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:20:47 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 2:13:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, that's not the one it affects the most. It affects her most.
I meant besides her. And no, it does not necessarily affects her the most.

Because it affects her in reality, and it affects the father only in your imagination and in some unjust statutes.
What kind of reality? If a man looks forward to having a child, feels very bad about abortions, how do you think he would feel if his wife/girlfriend aborted a child without his permission?
Laws should not exist on the basis of "feelings."

Do you think that is acceptable?
Quite.
Do you think it is unrealistic that a man feels guilty about having his unborn child murdered?
Yes. He had nothing to do with it.
Now, if he wishes to marry someone, and put a clause in the prenup that says "no abortions," and the woman agrees, thats a different story. Anything short of that...


Not analogous, your existence imposes no tangible burdens on me.
Which is why I have no need of compromising about my existence.
Whereas the fetus does. And the mother's decision has no need to compromise for the man, since it imposes no tangible burdens on him that there is an abortion.

And what is not analogous? Your argument is not analogous in the first place.
It is based on your reasoning of emotions being a relevant factor
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:47:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:27:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Laws should not exist on the basis of "feelings."
Then don't use an emotional argument to tell me that the consequences for not aborting are "real" for a woman, and unreal for a man.

Quite.
Because your grasp of reality and consequences is weak. Physical consequences are just as strong as mental consequences. You Objectivist ideas of "direct physical damage" are idiotic.

Yes. He had nothing to do with it.
Says who? If I am in a relationship with a woman, and she wants to abort my child, then I have a lot to do with that.

Now, if he wishes to marry someone, and put a clause in the prenup that says "no abortions," and the woman agrees, thats a different story. Anything short of that...
Counts. There's no reason why it should count for the woman only. If she did not want a child, she could have kept her trousers up.

Whereas the fetus does. And the mother's decision has no need to compromise for the man, since it imposes no tangible burdens on him that there is an abortion.
Why doesn't it do that?

It is based on your reasoning of emotions being a relevant factor
Please, what is this nonsense? You are the one who bases his arguments on emotions. You are the one saying "woman" "consequences" "reality" (summed up). I say that as much as the woman can taste consequences, so can the man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 2:47:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
Says who? If I am in a relationship with a woman, and she wants to abort my child, then I have a lot to do with that.

Do you have to carry the child for nine months? Is your body physically compromised in any way? The answer is no. You invest absolutely nothing in the development of the child. The fact that the child contains some of your genetic material is of absolutely no relevance.

It is not your child. The child does not belong to anyone. It's a creature that is living parasitically off of the women and she is perfectly entitled to remove it regardless of what anyone else involving it it's creation may have to say about it.


Counts. There's no reason why it should count for the woman only. If she did not want a child, she could have kept her trousers up.

Yes, just like if I don't want to get hit by a car, I shouldn't walk down the street. Any time I put myself in a situation where something bad could happen, it's my fault if it does. And I when I get hit by the car I should lay there and bleed out, for I certainly shouldn't try to remedy the results of my misfortune. There is, after all, no difference between reasonable and gratuitous risks, and those who take risks of any kind are not entitled to try to recoup their losses.

Have you ever tried applying that line of reasoning to something that doesn't involve the oppression of women? You'll notice that it makes no sense at all.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 5:06:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The right to chose whether an abortion is a viable choice of action is the woman's and not the man's.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 5:10:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 4:56:09 PM, Grape wrote:
At 2/13/2011 2:47:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
Says who? If I am in a relationship with a woman, and she wants to abort my child, then I have a lot to do with that.

Do you have to carry the child for nine months?
No, but I might have to work hard to earn a living for it and save for its bright future.

Is your body physically compromised in any way?
Yes, it could be.

The answer is no.
If you just take things simply - as most members here do - then no. If you look at various different situations, then yes. Sorry, have you been outside your country? Please experience other cultures before drawing conclusions about what it means to be pregnant, and how much it can actually affect the male, too.

You invest absolutely nothing in the development of the child.
Says who? Maybe not you because you're a moral nihilist and would not find it wrong not to take care of the child, but you and I are different.

The fact that the child contains some of your genetic material is of absolutely no relevance.
Yes it is, because I have a moral responsibility to take care of it, societal factors make me take care of it, etc. My mind focuses on it even if I don't want to.

It is not your child. The child does not belong to anyone.
Says who? Your nihilist culture or some objective force?

It's a creature that is living parasitically off of the women and she is perfectly entitled to remove it regardless of what anyone else involving it it's creation may have to say about it.
Since you are a moral nihilist, I can tell you that in this case, it is also perfectly fine if the man force the woman not to abort the child, one way or another.

Yes, just like if I don't want to get hit by a car, I shouldn't walk down the street.
That is different. It is necessary to go out. It is necessary to drive a car (or take a bus) if you have to earn a living and your work is 20 miles away. It is not necessary to have sex without safety measures. And what if a woman is raped? Then abortion is an option.

Any time I put myself in a situation where something bad could happen, it's my fault if it does. And I when I get hit by the car I should lay there and bleed out, for I certainly shouldn't try to remedy the results of my misfortune. There is, after all, no difference between reasonable and gratuitous risks, and those who take risks of any kind are not entitled to try to recoup their losses.
There is a difference between low risk, middle risk, and high risk. There is a difference between non-necessary choice and necessity itself.

Have you ever tried applying that line of reasoning to something that doesn't involve the oppression of women? You'll notice that it makes no sense at all.
Oppression of women? Please, get rid of your bias. I don't care whether I am talking about males or females in the context of justice, is that clear? Don't slander here. The woman might go through hardship of nine months - granted. However, the man might go through hardship of many more months if his child gets killed. Just because it is not in his body does not change the fact that severe consequences can have an impact on his life.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 5:11:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 5:06:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
The right to chose whether an abortion is a viable choice of action is the woman's and not the man's.
Which objective source says that?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 5:16:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/13/2011 5:11:30 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/13/2011 5:06:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
The right to chose whether an abortion is a viable choice of action is the woman's and not the man's.
Which objective source says that?

Logic.

Would you be comfortable with a doctor showing up at your door and telling you, "You must have your appendix removed" when there's no need for that procedure? Would you feel comfortable with a doctor refusing to follow through on a surgery your requested that would remove a tumor simply because your father showed up and said, "No, do not remove it. I do not feel comfortable with knives"?

Both of these examples show why the choice for an operation is the patient's -- they can consult with the doctor and ask for advice from family/friends. But ultimately -- it is their body and therefore their right to chose what stays and what goes.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.