The abortion paradox

[Skagens]

On one side you say, "One could argue the 'sperm chucker' has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child". The implication here is that depositing sperm in a vagina gives you proprietary rights over a woman's body. I do not understand your position. It is two faced to say the least.

 

On the other side, you say "And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone". Yet above you have already established proprietary rights over the woman's body, meaning you do view the woman as "an object".

 

Which is it. Your position seems hypocritical.

Saying that "the man should have some say" is not the same as giving him ownership over the woman to do with as he pleases. Saying that the man should have some say in the pregnancy and women having the right to do what they want with their own bodies can both be true. As I already previously stated, the ultimate and final decision is up to the woman.

 

 

And if I may be allowed tuppence on "viable", the legal definition is just so much vapor and is meant only to erode freedom. A fetus is not viable at birth. If t'were, a woman could give birth and walk away, and everyone here knows that to be false. Viable after 22 weeks is meaningless, and believing so is foolish. A child requires care and nurturing from others until if is capable of thriving on it's own. Only when a "person" can survive without the support of others is it "viable", until then it is no different than a parasite.

Interesting. Much to unpack. The legal definition is survivability outside of the womb, which most consider is around 24 weeks. That doesn't include the obvious support the child would need from the mother in order to continue surviving. What about that is eroding freedom? A child of 2 can't survive without an adult, but I think most people would agree it would be wrong both ethically and morally to consider that child a parasite. By your logic, the mother could just choose to kill her 2 year old baby if she suddenly changed her mind.

 

Also, a parasite is a very specific thing with it's own definition. A parasite is an organism that benefits at the other's expense. A fetus would qualify if it develops at the cost of the mother and her health, which most would agree is just not true. I suppose you could make an argument that the relationship between a fetus and the mother is close to being parasitic, but you can't really make that argument to fully formed babies. A fetus is not a parasite, nor is a 6 month old baby, nor is a 2 year old baby, nor is a 5 year old child. They can't fend for themselves, true, but that in it of itself doesn't make them parasites. Maybe you consider them to be, though.

[Skagens]

PS. A pregnant woman is not carrying any man's child. It is her child. The male supplied some raw material, but the woman nurtures the growing result in her body. The belief that a woman has a man's child is an old, archaic, outdated Judaeo/Christian patriarchal belief based in the assumption that women are the property of men. And if it were "the man's child", there is an implication of ownership here again, making the child a slave.

The woman is carrying the man's child, because it is his child. The woman is at the same time also carrying her child, because the child is also hers. A woman can't develop a fetus by herself.

[ScytheBearer]

 

On one side you say, "One could argue the 'sperm chucker' has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child". The implication here is that depositing sperm in a vagina gives you proprietary rights over a woman's body. I do not understand your position. It is two faced to say the least.

 

On the other side, you say "And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone". Yet above you have already established proprietary rights over the woman's body, meaning you do view the woman as "an object".

 

Which is it. Your position seems hypocritical.

Saying that "the man should have some say" is not the same as giving him ownership over the woman to do with as he pleases. Saying that the man should have some say in the pregnancy and women having the right to do what they want with their own bodies can both be true. As I already previously stated, the ultimate and final decision is up to the woman.

 

 

And if I may be allowed tuppence on "viable", the legal definition is just so much vapor and is meant only to erode freedom. A fetus is not viable at birth. If t'were, a woman could give birth and walk away, and everyone here knows that to be false. Viable after 22 weeks is meaningless, and believing so is foolish. A child requires care and nurturing from others until if is capable of thriving on it's own. Only when a "person" can survive without the support of others is it "viable", until then it is no different than a parasite.

Interesting. Much to unpack. The legal definition is survivability outside of the womb, which most consider is around 24 weeks. That doesn't include the obvious support the child would need from the mother in order to continue surviving. What about that is eroding freedom? A child of 2 can't survive without an adult, but I think most people would agree it would be wrong both ethically and morally to consider that child a parasite. By your logic, the mother could just choose to kill her 2 year old baby if she suddenly changed her mind.

 

Also, a parasite is a very specific thing with it's own definition. A parasite is an organism that benefits at the other's expense. A fetus would qualify if it develops at the cost of the mother and her health, which most would agree is just not true. I suppose you could make an argument that the relationship between a fetus and the mother is close to being parasitic, but you can't really make that argument to fully formed babies. A fetus is not a parasite, nor is a 6 month old baby, nor is a 2 year old baby, nor is a 5 year old child. They can't fend for themselves, true, but that in it of itself doesn't make them parasites. Maybe you consider them to be, though.

 

 

 

"Giving the man a say" when it involves the termination of a pregnancy is the semantic equivalent of "give the man a right". Any belief otherwise is delusional. Any insistence that it is not delusional is based in self delusion.

 

"The man's child" is the semantic equivalent of "Not the woman's child". "The man's child" implies ownership and proprietary rights. "The man's child" dismisses the woman and her role. It is as chauvinistic as many other phrases you have used.

 

The "survivability outside of the womb" test is used to arbitrarily limit the freedom of the woman to terminate a pregnancy when she wants. No more, on less. It is just an arbitrary point as "has a heart beat" or "begins movement". All are just an excuse to legally meddle in someone else's life and limit their freedom.

 

A parasite is any organism which is dependent on a host or another animal for its survival. Given that a child cannot survive without a host or another animal until it reaches maturity qualifies is as a parasite. The reality that the child consumes resources without contributing to the collection or production of those resources qualifies is as a parasite.

 

 

PS. A pregnant woman is not carrying any man's child. It is her child. The male supplied some raw material, but the woman nurtures the growing result in her body. The belief that a woman has a man's child is an old, archaic, outdated Judaeo/Christian patriarchal belief based in the assumption that women are the property of men. And if it were "the man's child", there is an implication of ownership here again, making the child a slave.

The woman is carrying the man's child, because it is his child. The woman is at the same time also carrying her child, because the child is also hers. A woman can't develop a fetus by herself.

 

Again, semantics. I addressed the asininity of "the man's ..." above.

 

 

If you want to discuss this topic in an unbiased way, you need to examine your use of vocabulary. How you say things is as important as what you say. You keep using words and phrases which imply that men somehow have rights and ownership when it comes to a pregnant woman. And as I pointed out, you use these words and phrases in such a way as to directly contradict other things you say. I know that most of that is semantics, but repeated use of the same phrases and words reflects your attitudes and thinking. And what I have come away with it that you have a male dominated, male superiority, male rightness attitude which is anathema to a sane discussion of this topic. Rail as you will, but you are a male chauvinist, whose attitudes are worthy of disgust.

 

Let the excuses and rationalizations begin.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[Guest deleted34304850]

A woman can't develop a fetus by herself.

knowledge of reproduction not your strongest subject?

how about picking up a book and educating yourself?

[Skagens]

"Giving the man a say" when it involves the termination of a pregnancy is the semantic equivalent of "give the man a right". Any belief otherwise is delusional. Any insistence that it is not delusional is based in self delusion.

"The man's child" is the semantic equivalent of "Not the woman's child". "The man's child" implies ownership and proprietary rights. "The man's child" dismisses the woman and her role. It is as chauvinistic as many other phrases you have used.

 

The "survivability outside of the womb" test is used to arbitrarily limit the freedom of the woman to terminate a pregnancy when she wants. No more, on less. It is just an arbitrary point as "has a heart beat" or "begins movement". All are just an excuse to legally meddle in someone else's life and limit their freedom.

 

A parasite is any organism which is dependent on a host or another animal for its survival. Given that a child cannot survive without a host or another animal until it reaches maturity qualifies is as a parasite. The reality that the child consumes resources without contributing to the collection or production of those resources qualifies is as a parasite.

Saying that "the father should have some say" is not the same as "the man decides". That is not what I've said and it's not what I believe. How you choose to interpret what I say is up to you. The child is both the man and the woman's. One does not exclude the other, no matter how much you want it to. If believing that both parent's opinions matter is in your mind being a male chauvinist then fine.

 

Again, semantics. I addressed the asininity of "the man's ..." above.

 

If you want to discuss this topic in an unbiased way, you need to examine your use of vocabulary. How you say things is as important as what you say. You keep using words and phrases which imply that men somehow have rights and ownership when it comes to a pregnant woman. And as I pointed out, you use these words and phrases in such a way as to directly contradict other things you say. I know that most of that is semantics, but repeated use of the same phrases and words reflects your attitudes and thinking. And what I have come away with it that you have a male dominated, male superiority, male rightness attitude which is anathema to a sane discussion of this topic. Rail as you will, but you are a male chauvinist, whose attitudes are worthy of disgust.

 

Let the excuses and rationalizations begin.

I've already stated it but I'll repeat however many times is required: The man doesn't have a right to her body, nobody does. Her body is her own to do with as she wish. An argument can be made, though, that the man should have some say or some easy-off when it comes to pregnancy. You make me out as some monster who hates women, which is an interesting deduction from a few comments. I know what I believe and I know nothing I can say at this point can convince you of otherwise. If I were to base my entire opinion of you on these few comments then what I'd take away from this is that you seem care very little for children and will in all likelihood never have them. You see them as nothing more as taking resources, being a burden and contributing nothing, parasites. I don't believe one can completely know a person from a handful of comments, though. I am a little concerned you are upset with me. If it means anything, that was not my intention. In any regard, this was fascinating, and I wish you a good day.

 

But ok, if abortion should be available, which both of us agree it should, then what is your opinion, if you have one, of the child support system as it is now? Should it be dismantled or restructured to better serve both parties? Is it fair for a man to be financially stuck to support a child that he never wanted, and took reasonable steps to prevent? If not, how come?

Edited January 31, 2022 by Skagens

[Skagens]

knowledge of reproduction not your strongest subject?

how about picking up a book and educating yourself?

It was my understanding that sperm is required. Is that no longer the case, or was this an attempt at humor?

[Guest deleted34304850]

no humour, just pity.

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

 

 

You obviously do not understand the difference between what you say, and the words you use to say something. So let me pick ONE example.

 

"The man's child". Where is the woman in that phrase? Do you not see the exclusion and dismissal in that phrase? Do you not comprehend that such phrases are deliberately meant to diminish women and their role? Do you not see the propriety implications for ownership in that phrase?

 

You use that phrase, and every time you use it, you tell the world "the woman is nothing, the child is the man's, and he has the authority to control what happens to it". Your protestations to the contrary fall on deaf ears, because anyone can see the truth in the words you use.

 

You will once again protest "that is not what you believe", and I (and probably many others) will not believe you because the words and phrases you use put the lie to what you claim to believe. You have yet to learn that the way you say things tells people more about what you believe and about your attitudes than all the "that's not what I believe" you can put to paper.

 

I feel confident that at some point you have heard the phrase "What you do speaks louder than what you say". The same holds for words and phrases when writing about "what you believe".

Edited February 1, 2022 by ScytheBearer

[xrayy]

it would be interesting to discuss such a topic. but do you think this is the right place here probably without any female contribution at all ? i have severe doubts that this works and makes sense. why should a women take part if a topic is opened like that ? study all the debate topics and see how a discussion works here. i learned much and my conclusion: sadly most topics and discussions are not worth the time because you will turn in circles after a short time with only a few and probably always the same participants with their always same attitude and behavior and living in their more or less limited own world. cheers and all the best to all of you!

[HeyYou]

no humour, just pity.

To the best of my knowledge, a woman cannot reproduce by herself. Sure, there are methods that don't require a man to be present.... artificial insemination, for instance, but, aside from that, no, a woman CANNOT reproduce on her own.

 

it would be interesting to discuss such a topic. but do you think this is the right place here probably without any female contribution at all ? i have severe doubts that this works and makes sense. why should a women take part if a topic is opened like that ? study all the debate topics and see how a discussion works here. i learned much and my conclusion: sadly most topics and discussions are not worth the time because you will turn in circles after a short time with only a few and probably always the same participants with their always same attitude and behavior and living in their more or less limited own world. cheers and all the best to all of you!

Anyone is welcome to contribute to discussions here. If no women bother to, that isn't the fault of the original poster. Nothing he can do about it.

 

In all reality, I don't see a gaming forum as the 'proper' place to debate MANY of the topics that come up here. :) We aren't accomplishing anything, we aren't going to change anyones mind, we aren't going to change any laws. Does have a certain amount of entertainment value though..... which is likely why this forum still exists here.