Abortion Unfiltered

Zombrex

Ultravid wrote: »

Consciousness is not why I'm against abortion. I hold human life as inherently valuable, something which the pro-abortion folks (sorry I know you don't like that term but I can't use the term pro-choice) seem to lack. I guess the difference is whether or not we value human life.

Well no, the difference is whether one values human life for a reason or not. Based on this reason one can then look at the issue of whether or not a sperm/egg pair, or a zygote, or an embryo, or a foetus or a new born or a 51 year old, or a brain dead person, matches that reason.

You, based on this statement (I haven't read all 11 pages of this thread), apparently don't have a reason, you just hold human life value just because? You don't appear to have a reason behind that. You just do.

Which is a bit of a conversation ender to be honest, and not something that one can really enter a debate with

You are ever going to convince someone of your position by saying that you believe it just because you believe it. Nor does there seem to be any way for someone to agree with your reasons (you don't have any) or disagree and say they are wrong.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

The points made in my last post weren't personal to you. I was just presenting them for consideration by the others.

If theyve been made, explained and discussed in length before in this thread what the hell is the point in making them again?

Ultravid wrote: »

I may not have explained myself as you suggested just now, but nor have you addressed Kreeft's arguments as above.

And which one of our sides should hold more weight given the above to be true do you think?

talaght wrote:

I take your point.

I don't agree with it. I don't think our valuation of other humans comes from their conscious levels. I don't love my family for that reason. I would still love any of them of they were severely brain damaged tot he extent that they had no memories, orhadn't the pathways to develop feelings other than those basic emotions that animals can show.
.

Well i can understand why you would still love them, but that doesn't really prove your point. All it says is that its quite hard for someone so close to said brain dead or brain damaged person to remain objective.

tallaght wrote:

I'm pretty sure, deep down, we value human life because we ARE humans. I can see no evidence that we love those humans who are more highly developed than those who are less so.

It might be a cruel fact to face, im not denying that. But lets say you have two siblings, one is severly brain damaged(for all intents and purposes a vegetable) and one is normal(both are Human). You were given a choice....you must kill one and save the other. Which do you choose and why?

tallaght wrote:

I'd still like to know, out of curiousity, how you measure consciousness....both in terms of us and animals. How do we know that they just don't value things differently?

Well they do of course value things differently. But it makes sense to value the beings with consciousnesses(ARG spelling) similar to our own. Hence why we might relate more to a monkey than we would to a rhino for example.

tallaght wrote:

I just think it's fair that the pro-abortion side lay out the tiny details of their theories, if they're going to ask the anti-abortion side to argue the minutiae of when life starts

So do i think its fair. but ive never argued at the point of when life start, just when i think we should value it.

Virgil°

Thank christ you're here Wicknight. Can you take over and i go to bed please?

Zombrex

Virgil° wrote: »

Thank christ you're here Wicknight

As an atheist I find that deeply offensive :pac:

tallaght01

Wicknight, it's very difficult to explain why humans as a race value other humans above their dog. People will have different reasons, but most just do.

Talking about consciousness is an easy way out. But we are not attached to all humans equally. There's so much more to it.

The world hardly bats and eyelied when 250,000 people die in Dharfur and a million are driven from their homes. They have the same consciousness as we do. There's so much more to the issue than you or I could explain.

But it doesn't take a genius to work out the following:

1) we DO value human life above other animals

2) We often value human life, even when the person is so damaged as to have no more brain activity than an animal.

Virgil°

Wicknight wrote: »

As an atheist I find that deeply offensive :pac:

Thank science you're here Wicknight can you take over and i got to bed please?

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Well i can understand why you would still love them, but that doesn't really prove your point. All it says is that its quite hard for someone so close to said brain dead or brain damaged person to remain objective.


It might be a cruel fact to face, im not denying that. But lets say you have two siblings, one is severly brain damaged(for all intents and purposes a vegetable) and one is normal(both are Human). You were given a choice....you must kill one and save the other. Which do you choose and why?


Well they do of course value things differently. But it makes sense to value the beings with consciousnesses(ARG spelling) similar to our own. Hence why we might relate more to a monkey than we would to a rhino for example.


So do i think its fair. but ive never argued at the point of when life start, just when i think we should value it.

That's not true. We, as a society wouldn't tolerate the culling of the sevrrely mentally handicapped. It's not just the families im talking about.

Your point about kiling one of the 2 siblings doesn't stand....for a very good reason....

It's simply not reasonable to compare the brain dead sibling to a fetus, The brain dead child will stay brain deads forever.

The fetus will develop significantly.

This is the same reason why abortion arguments that start taling about brain dead adults on life support machines are not comparing apples with apples.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Your point about kiling one of the 2 siblings doesn't stand....for a very good reason....

It's simply not reasonable to compare the brain dead sibling to a fetus, The brain dead child will stay brain deads forever.

What about a brain damaged child in that scenario? like i said before actually.Which do you choose?.
Also what difference does it make brain dead...brain damaged, you're the one saying we dont place value on humans because of the consciousness.

tallaght wrote:

The fetus will develop significantly.

Goodie, i was actually hoping you'd make that point.
As this is where i can simply agree to disagree. I cant convince you that a potential consciousness isn't valueable, and you cant convince me the opposite. Such is the proper stalemate between pro life and choice i feel.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

Wicknight, it's very difficult to explain why humans as a race value other humans above their dog. People will have different reasons, but most just do.

It certainly seems to be. But as I said to Ultravid without any sort of reason or logical foundation for why human life is valuable the conversation/debt just stalls. Someone says they value human life just because. Someone else say they don't, just because. There is no debt there because there is nothing to debt.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Talking about consciousness is an easy way out.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

It is certainly a way out of the rather pointless stale mate I describe above, though I'm not sure I would call it "easy". It took me a long time to really think through my position and the fundamentals of why I view both myself and others as valuable, and what properties of my body hold value.

tallaght01 wrote: »

But we are not attached to all humans equally. There's so much more to it.

Well yes but that to me would be a very good reason to search for rational arguments behind our instinctive emotions, rather than simply relying on how we feel about different people as deciding factors in whether or not we value their lives.

Otherwise we get into a situation where we assert that someone has no value, and therefore no civil rights, simply because we don't give a hoot about them, and vice versa

There are plenty of people I don't give a hoot about, but I still consider them to have equal human rights to me because of the principles of my ethical system, not because I am emotional attached to them in some way.

tallaght01 wrote: »

1) we DO value human life above other animals

See that is the thing. Often we don't. Hitler viewed his dog as more valuable than all the Jews in the world.

We have a basic instinctive/evolutionary emotional system to assign value to other humans, but this system is far from perfect and some what biased towards humans that are close to us, either in a family sense or a tribal sense.

In my view we, as a species, really need to try and put some form of rational framework over this rather imperfect instinctive emotional system. Not just in terms of abortion, but in all ethical issues.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

What about a brain damaged child in that scenario? like i said before actually.Which do you choose?.
Also what difference does it make brain dead...brain damaged, you're the one saying we dont place value on humans because of the consciousness.


Goodie, i was actually hoping you'd make that point.
As this is where i can simply agree to disagree. I cant convince you that a potential consciousness isn't valueable, and you cant convince me the opposite. Such is the proper stalemate between pro life and choice i feel.

I knew you were fishing for that response, as I'd read the earlier part of the thread.

I don't think the "potentialness" is the issue. I think the "actualness" of the fetus is the issue.

I was making the point that you're not comparing like with like. Let me explain....

You think consciousness is the important thing.

To back up that point you, or others, were talking about how we let adults on life support machnes die.

Or we'd be more likely to let a brain damaged sibling die than his/her normal sibling.

I made the point that the 2 groups are not comparable, if consciousness is what defines your right to life.

That's because the fetus will become conscious. The brain dead people won't.

Therefore, I was saying your argument doesn't hold water. I have never argued that consciousness is the issue.

To me, consciousness isn't the issue.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's simply not reasonable to compare the brain dead sibling to a fetus, The brain dead child will stay brain deads forever.

The fetus will develop significantly.

This is the same reason why abortion arguments that start taling about brain dead adults on life support machines are not comparing apples with apples.

It is comparing apples with apples at that moment in time. You have a living human life but it is not a person, it does not yet contain the properties that we consider to be a person.

One can say that it soon will be a human person, but not at that moment. The consciousness does not exist. It doesn't exist now, it didn't exist 10 minutes ago, it didn't exist when it was just a sperm and egg about to get together, it didn't exist 2 million years ago. It has not come into existence yet. It has not been created. It may well be created if you don't do anything, but then isn't that the point? Its the reason we use condoms.

So if you don't want a human person abort now before it comes into existence. Kill the human life form before it has the properties that we consider to be valuable. You are not destroying the thing of value because the thing of value has not yet come into existence.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

To back up that point you, or others, were talking about how we let adults on life support machnes die.

Or we'd be more likely to let a brain damaged sibling die than his/her normal sibling.

I made the point that the 2 groups are not comparable, if consciousness is what defines your right to life.

That's because the fetus will become conscious. The brain dead people won't.

I know that you value a fetus with the potential to have a consciousness, But is that BECAUSE it has the potential for consciousness? If it is then you're contradicting yourself by saying it isn't an issue to you.And im not going to try and convince you that the potential isnt important, because i know i couldn't. Just the same as you couldn't do the opposite to me.

The only point i was making in the life or death scenario between a fully grown healthy sibling and a fully grown brain damaged sibling, is that we DO in fact place an enormous amount of value on the level of consciousness.That was the only point.

I wasn't comparing either of the siblings to a fetus.

Virgil°

EEEEEEKKK don't start using the word "person" Wicknight.......use something else lest you invoke the wrath of zulu. Stick to consciousness or intelligent person or something.Ive worked so hard:(

tallaght01

Wicknight. Consciousness IS an easy way out.

It's not based on any evidence. It's not even a defined entity. And we can't communicate with other species to determine their consciousness.

I just find it easier to say I don't know why humans value ourselves above other species. Rather than relying on an esoteric concept.

Bringing hitler into this debate is to use the exception to argue the rule. It'd like bringing Jeffrey Dahmer into the vegetarianism debate.

As a society, we value humans above animals. I think it's because we ARE humans. You think it's to do with consciousnes. I don't know who's right. Neither of us can prove anything. The onus certainly shouldn't be on me to prove it!

It's very easy to say we should apply a rational framework to our arguments on value systems. But i'd like to see you try, with any degree of evidence to back up what you say

Your argument trying to justify the comparisns between brain dead people and fetuses has me confused. Why should we only lok at an issue at only one point in time. And more importantly, why only look at one side of the argument at one point in time. let me elaborate...

Your're comparing the brain dead adult with the fetus.

You say you can turn off the adult's life support machine because he will stay brain dead.

But you will terminate the fetus because he has no consciousness now, but will in the future.

If we applied that logic, I'd be flicking a lot of switches in intensive care. Mostly of people who will get better.

You were comapring apples with oranges int he first place. But, with all respect, you're now camparing apples with seagulls.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

I know that you value a fetus with the potential to have a consciousness, But is that BECAUSE it has the potential for consciousness? If it is then you're contradicting yourself by saying it isn't an issue to you.And im not going to try and convince you that the potential isnt important, because i know i couldn't. Just the same as you couldn't do the opposite to me.

The only point i was making in the life or death scenario between a fully grown healthy sibling and a fully grown brain damaged sibling, is that we DO in fact place an enormous amount of value on the level of consciousness.That was the only point.

I wasn't comparing either of the siblings to a fetus.

No, you've misunderstood me.

Consciousness isn't the issue for me. The babies I work with dont have the same devloped higher finctions that I have. But I woldn't kill them.

Similarly, one of our babies born at 23 weeks has a brain that is very primitive, I will still fight to keep him alive.

It's also not about the potential. Like I said before, I value the fetus as a life, not as a potential life.

The only reason we'd pick the brain damaged sibling in your rather bizzarre scenario os a quality of life issue.

In medicine, with limited resources, we try and allocate resources where they will make the biggest difference.

In the case of the 2 siblings....all other things being equal (which is where your argument will fall don straight away), then the normal child will derive greatest benefit fromt he life saving drug or whatever.

It's nothing to do witht he valuation of their "life" status.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Your're comparing the brain dead adult with the fetus.

You say you can turn off the adult's life support machine because he will stay brain dead.

But you will terminate the fetus because he has no consciousness now, but will in the future.

Dude go back and actually READ my post.
Ive said VERY specifically that im not comparing the brain damaged or healthy sibling to the fetus.
Im only trying to emphasize, that, whether we like it or not....when push comes to shove we do value levels of consciousness.

And as ive also said I at least am not going to try and convince you that a fetus with the potential for consciousness isnt important, and you vise versa to me.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Dude go back and actually READ my post.
Ive said VERY specifically that im not comparing the brain damaged or healthy sibling to the fetus.
Im only trying to emphasize, that, whether we like it or not....when push comes to shove we do value levels of consciousness.

And as ive also said I at least am not going to try and convince you that a fetus with the potential for consciousness isnt important, and you vise versa to me.

Well of course we value consciousness!!! I've never said we don't. We value hearing, speech, cognitive ability, motor skills and understanding.

I'm not sure where you're going with that point, though. Because we value something, doesn't mean that it defines us.


I had assumes that was why you raised the issue of the brain dead kids. BUt now I'm stumped :P

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

No, you've misunderstood me.

Consciousness isn't the issue for me. The babies I work with dont have the same devloped higher finctions that I have. But I woldn't kill them.

Similarly, one of our babies born at 23 weeks has a brain that is very primitive, I will still fight to keep him alive.

It's also not about the potential. Like I said before, I value the fetus as a life, not as a potential life.

I never mentioned "life" or potential "life".
The rest of that point is irrelevant. Given that you havent explained why you value human life.Other than" because its human life".

tallaght01 wrote: »

In my scenario quality of life shouldn't come into it. If you are true to your word of valuing all human life.
n the case of the 2 siblings....all other things being equal (which is where your argument will fall don straight away), then the normal child will derive greatest benefit fromt he life saving drug or whatever.

Why would one derive greater benefit?
Surely it couldnt be because ones consciousness is greater than the other?

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well of course we value consciousness!!! I've never said we don't. We value hearing, speech, cognitive ability, motor skills and understanding.

I'm not sure where you're going with that point, though. Because we value something, doesn't mean that it defines us.


I had assumes that was why you raised the issue of the brain dead kids. But now I'm stumped :P

What i'm saying is that we value levels of consciousness more so than just "life" or any other characteristic.
Otherwise we'd be incapable of killing all the animals we do for eating purposes,as in many ways bar our intelligence vast numbers of animals are greatly superior to us,hearing, speech,motor skills etc..... .

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Why would one derive greater benefit?
Surely it couldnt be because ones consciousness is greater than the other?

Absoloutely. Without "a consciousness" (whatver that is) he will derive less benefit from his brother. Similarly, if u presented the scenario wher the only difference is that one sibling has no limbs, the answer would be the same.

But legs and arms don't make us humans.

The other reason why the brain damaged sibling would derive less benefit are:

He is very likely to die much younger

He will have no physical capabilities.

He will spend a lot of time in hospitals

He will have no capacity for independence

Like I said, the scenario isn't particuarly realistic anyway.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

What i'm saying is that we value levels of consciousness more so than just "life" or any other characteristic.
Otherwise we'd be incapable of killing all the animals we do for eating purposes,as in many ways bar our intelligence vast numbers of animals are greatly superior to us,hearing, speech,motor skills etc..... .

And I will respectfully diagree with you, on the basis that I couldn't kill and eat a human who had the same develoment levels as an animal.
On top of that, we don't love people more if they are more highly developed.


I think our valuation is about the fat that we are all humans, and not about consciousness.

But, like I said to wicknight, none of us can prove that.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

Wicknight. Consciousness IS an easy way out.

Easy in what way?

Is it more or less easy than saying life begins at conception?

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's not based on any evidence. It's not even a defined entity. And we can't communicate with other species to determine their consciousness.

How does that make it easy? I think it is rather challenging and as you suggest it raises issues of the rights of other animals. We can actually communicate with other species to attempt to determine their consciousness, such as the mirror test. But again I'm not following how you think this makes anything "easy"

tallaght01 wrote: »

I just find it easier to say I don't know why humans value ourselves above other species. Rather than relying on an esoteric concept.

Isn't that the true easy way out. Just throwing ones hands up and declaring, universally, that we just do

tallaght01 wrote: »

Bringing hitler into this debate is to use the exception to argue the rule.

It isn't the exception at all. History is littered with countless examples of people who did not or do not view human life, or some human life, as having any particular value.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think it's because we ARE humans.

Well it is because we as a species have evolved an emotional system for regulating social behaviour that encourages empathy and compassion with other humans close to us, that has provided evolutionary benefit to us.

But that isn't really enough for a full ethical frame work. We have also evolved a natural tendency to kill humans outside of our family or tribal unit, thus leading to the Hitlers and Stalins and their millions of willing supporters.

So we don't really instinctively value human life above animal life. We instinctively value some human life about animal life.

And in fact this instinct has been utilized by other species such as dogs who have evolved physical traits, such as big eyes, that trigger the emotional response in us to protect that is normally reserved for humans such as babies.

The point is that none of this is particular solid enough that one could construct an ethical system on our evolutionary emotional systems alone. Modern society doesn't simply value human life over animals because we just do. These ideas emerged from a long rational philosophical process that goes back to ancient times.

tallaght01 wrote: »

You think it's to do with consciousnes.

No I don't. I'm not saying that is why people value human life. Most people I imagine have no idea why they value human life, and as I said the particulars of how they value change depending on who you are talking about.

I'm saying that is my rational framework, a framework I think a lot of people would agree with if presented it.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know who's right. Neither of us can prove anything. The onus certainly shouldn't be on me to prove it!

I haven't asked you to prove anything.

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's very easy to say we should apply a rational framework to our arguments on value systems. But i'd like to see you try, with any degree of evidence to back up what you say

I thought I had already done that, a few times in fact in previous threads.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Your argument trying to justify the comparisns between brain dead people and fetuses has me confused. Why should we only lok at an issue at only one point in time.

Because the issue relates to what currently exists.

We don't grant rights to human persons that do not exist yet (my future, currently non-existent, son/daughter has no rights) or that once existed but now doesn't. In fact such ideas appear almost nonsensical. Why would something that doesn't exist need rights?

tallaght01 wrote: »

You say you can turn off the adult's life support machine because he will stay brain dead.

But you will terminate the fetus because he has no consciousness now, but will in the future.

You can turn of the machine because the person does not exist. They did exist, but now they don't. They have died

You can destroy the foetus because the person does not exist. They may exist in the future, but now they don't.

As I said future people that have yet to come into existence don't have rights, because they don't exist. Neither do people who have died.

tallaght01 wrote: »

If we applied that logic, I'd be flicking a lot of switches in intensive care. Mostly of people who will get better.

Why? They exist as human persons at that moment. Their brains contain a human person, it's memories it's ability to think etc.

To flick of the care units would be to destroy a human person that currently exists, which is a crime in my view, because a currently existing human person is valuable.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Absoloutely. Without "a consciousness" (whatver that is) he will derive less benefit from his brother. Similarly, if u presented the scenario wher the only difference is that one sibling has no limbs, the answer would be the same.

Thats because the ONLY difference is the limbs. You could reduce that logic to, if one was slightly taller or more beautiful. Your choice would be ultimately immoral either way...but if you had to chose one you would.
But either way my point stands....i asked you to choose a lesser consciousness or a greater one and you chose the higher one. Because you do value these higher levels.
Now if you had to choose between a person with no limbs and a brain dead person? IN all cases you see here that consciousness is the defining characteristic above all our other ones.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Thats because the ONLY difference is the limbs. You could reduce that logic to, if one was slightly taller or more beautiful. Your choice would be ultimately immoral either way...but if you had to chose one you would.
But either way my point stands....i asked you to choose a lesser consciousness or a greater one and you chose the higher one. Because you do value these higher levels.
Now if you had to choose between a person with no limbs and a brain dead person? IN all cases you see here that consciousness is the defining characteristic above all our other ones.

No no no. For the reasons I gave above. The brain dead person will have a significantly reduced quality of life, compared to the person with no legs. Is that.

A) Is that really such a difficult concept?
How does that prove that we are valued as humans because of consciousness. I would pick the person with no legs to live over the person with no legs and no arms. Does this mean arms are what makes us valuable.

Consciousness is probably responsible for most of our quality of life. But it doesnt mean that's why we value humans. Like I said before, society still values those who are severely brain damaged.

Wicknight wrote: »

Easy in what way?

Is it more or less easy than saying life begins at conception?


How does that make it easy? I think it is rather challenging and as you suggest it raises issues of the rights of other animals. We can actually communicate with other species to attempt to determine their consciousness, such as the mirror test. But again I'm not following how you think this makes anything "easy"


Isn't that the true easy way out. Just throwing ones hands up and declaring, universally, that we just do


It isn't the exception at all. History is littered with countless examples of people who did not or do not view human life, or some human life, as having any particular value.


Well it is because we as a species have evolved an emotional system for regulating social behaviour that encourages empathy and compassion with other humans close to us, that has provided evolutionary benefit to us.

But that isn't really enough for a full ethical frame work. We have also evolved a natural tendency to kill humans outside of our family or tribal unit, thus leading to the Hitlers and Stalins and their millions of willing supporters.

So we don't really instinctively value human life above animal life. We instinctively value some human life about animal life.

And in fact this instinct has been utilized by other species such as dogs who have evolved physical traits, such as big eyes, that trigger the emotional response in us to protect that is normally reserved for humans such as babies.

The point is that none of this is particular solid enough that one could construct an ethical system on our evolutionary emotional systems alone. Modern society doesn't simply value human life over animals because we just do. These ideas emerged from a long rational philosophical process that goes back to ancient times.


No I don't. I'm not saying that is why people value human life. Most people I imagine have no idea why they value human life, and as I said the particulars of how they value change depending on who you are talking about.

I'm saying that is my rational framework, a framework I think a lot of people would agree with if presented it.


I haven't asked you to prove anything.



I thought I had already done that, a few times in fact in previous threads.



Because the issue relates to what currently exists.

We don't grant rights to human persons that do not exist yet (my future, currently non-existent, son/daughter has no rights) or that once existed but now doesn't. In fact such ideas appear almost nonsensical. Why would something that doesn't exist need rights?



You can turn of the machine because the person does not exist. They did exist, but now they don't. They have died

You can destroy the foetus because the person does not exist. They may exist in the future, but now they don't.

As I said future people that have yet to come into existence don't have rights, because they don't exist. Neither do people who have died.


Why? They exist as human persons at that moment. Their brains contain a human person, it's memories it's ability to think etc.

To flick of the care units would be to destroy a human person that currently exists, which is a crime in my view, because a currently existing human person is valuable.

This is a pretty long and disjointed post, so let me try and summarise, so I can address your point without breaking the post up and confusing the issue further:

1) Saying consciousness is the central issue isn't the easy way out. Saying that I can't prove on boards what people have been trying to prove for donkeys years in universities around the world is the easy way out.


2) You can communicate with animals


3) I can't assign legitimacy to the value of human life unless I can tell you why that's the case.


4) Hitler wasn't an exceptional case


5) We both agree that we value human life life because of the human-ness, not because of consciousness or potential.


6) You're arguing about how evolution encourages us to kill people outside our family in a debate about killing our own fetuses.


7) You have presented your rational framework. Though I still don't understand what that is, with respect. Other than an opinion on evolution.


8) It's OK to terminate an adult if they are brain dead, on the basis of a lack of consciousness.


9) It's not OK to terminate an unconscious adult on the basis of their consciousness, because they will return to consciousness in the future.


10) It's OK to terminate babies who are conscious to a varying degree, as it doesn't matter that they will become conscious in the future.


I just wanted to make sure that I'd actually read your argument correctly!!!! Coz I couldn't quite believe what i was reading.

taibhse

Its all so easy for men to pontificate, for the ones who have the black and white attitude of "she made her bed so she can lie in it".
They are not the ones who will have to carry the baby and I firmly believe that a woman should not be made carry a baby against her will. It is her body and not the property of social commentary.

Sexual abstinence is not a realistic suggestion to millions of women around the world.
Now of course I am not suggesting abortion as a contraceptive method or that they be handed out willy nilly.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm all for abortion, but tbh if the woman has the right to decide herself whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term the man oughta have the right to choose whether he wants to be legal guardian or not.

tallaght01

taibhse wrote: »

Its all so easy for men to pontificate, for the ones who have the black and white attitude of "she made her bed so she can lie in it".
They are not the ones who will have to carry the baby and I firmly believe that a woman should not be made carry a baby against her will. It is her body and not the property of social commentary.

Sexual abstinence is not a realistic suggestion to millions of women around the world.
Now of course I am not suggesting abortion as a contraceptive method or that they be handed out willy nilly.

I my opinion, though...this isn't about you as much as it is the baby.

It was you and the guy's actions that lead to the pregancy in the first case. In most cases, this is consensual.

But the baby pays the price for this.

I think that type of thinking is why ther needs to be people whoa dvocate for the rights of the child.

Yor womb isn't our property. But when the responsible adult abdicates responsibility for a child, then it becomes an issue that affects society.

So, it's not just a case of men pontificating from the sides. To extend that logic, you'd be happy enough if men ignored womens rights altogether because they don't affect us!

taibhse

But your glossing over all pregnancies in the same fashion.

I my opinion, though...this isn't about you as much as it is the baby.

It was you and the guy's actions that lead to the pregancy in the first case. In most cases, this is consensual.

There are accidents that happen. If a woman has sex it doesnt mean she wants to get pregnant. Yes it may have been consentual but I don't believe a woman should be made to carry a baby against her will.
Before a certain point in development yes I do think the woman's rights has precidence over the foetus

Nevyn

MistressMord wrote: »

I'm all for abortion, but tbh if the woman has the right to decide herself whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term the man oughta have the right to choose whether he wants to be legal guardian or not.

If they are not married to the mother of the child they do have the choice about applying for legal guardianship or not.

You can not be legal guardianship and still be named as the father and expected to pay maintenance.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well then not have to pay child support. If the right of the choice is entirely with the mother, then the right of responsibility is entirely with her.