Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

It is not a false equivalence at all. What is false is your claim that the "intent" behind sex is necessarily pregnancy.

A car many not have been created for murdering people but if someone uses a car as a murder weapon it is still murder.

A penis has a couple of purposes. One is to pee and another is for sex. What matters is the intent of the person using the penis.

The vast majority of the time the person using the penis is not intending pregnancy. (and good thing too as our world is already overpopulated)

This is nonsense. The whole purpose of contraception is to eliminate (or close to eliminate) the possibility of pregnancy. The resulting pregnancy is either the fault of faulty contraceptive or the fault of improper use of that contraceptive.

In any case... if a pregnancy happens, regardless of whose fault, there are methods to stop the creation of a child. Morning After Pill and Abortion for example.

Are you claiming that a zygote is a living human/child ?

Again you seem to be claiming that the single cell at conception= a living human

False equivalency combined with logical fallacy (assuming the premise).

 

That does not mean that intent is not important. If the man intends procreation (and is willing to sign off on this) then for sure he is responsible to support a child that results from this effort at procreation.

 

I am not the one claiming that a person should be made responsible for the consequences of another persons actions. You are.

If the woman decides to continue a pregnancy then it is her responsibility to deal with the consequences of her actions.

You want to make the man responsible for the consequences of the woman's actions.

Why don't you think women should take responsibility for their own actions ?

- - - Updated - - -

LOL ... You really have a hate on for men it seems.

 

Have you written or emailed your Congressman yet? Or is whining your only action? What I think has nothing to do with what men are required by law to do.

I would like men to support their children....but ,of course , if that's too hard for men to do they should start a campaign to have a law passed freeing them of all responsibility.

Because I don't care if men are forced to support their children doesn't mean I hate them...but that is wayyyyyy beyond your comprehension...

And if you think Texas forcing women to give birth is a good thing then clearly YOU hate women...seems you approve FORCING women to do your will but men should never be forced... hypocritical.

 

You can criticize me and men all you like but that does not change the fact that you have no argument.

Putting words in my mouth does not support your claim either.

I said that women should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. This is not hating women nor is it hypocritical. I also think men should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

It is you that is the hypocrite because you want men to be responsible for the consequences of the actions of women.

You want freedom of choice for women but you do not want women to have to take responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

 

The fact that you have not, and can NOT, answer any question I put to you means you have no argument. YOU put words in my mouth by assuming I hate men when I never said that.

YOU do NOT want freedom of choice for women(you love Texas's actions against them !!!!!!!!!!) but you want men to escape all responsibility for actual live living children..., I guess you really hate children!

 

You have criticized men in almost every post. My stating " You have criticized men" is not me saying you hate men.

Where is the question you want answered ?

Have I emailed my congressman. Yes but this has no relevance to the question of taking responsibility for the consequences of ones actions

What other question did you have ?

All you keep doing is repeating your premise (the father should pay) over and over again but you give no argument as to why.

You are a hypocrite. You say you want a woman to have a choice.

Why should a man be responsible for the consequences of the actions/choice of the woman ?

Why should the woman not have responsibility for the consequences of her choices ?

 

It is false equivalence. The purpose of a car is not to kill people, it is to travel. He may intend to kill someone with a car, but that is not the cars purpose. The purpose of sex is to bring life, that is the specific biological process necessary for reproduction. Two people may not intend to reproduce and have sex for enjoyment, but that doesn't change the ultimate purpose of sex.

It is not nonsense. There may be such methods to reduce risks, but ultimately many of them do not prevent a pregnancy, they prevent a birth. Personally, I would rather not shoot someone then save their life, but rather fire my weapon safely...

Bringing me to my next point. What I said is not false equivalency at all. I specifically mentioned in my analogy a building is in construction, just as in pregnancy a person is in construction. My analogy even took on your view that a fetus is not a person by specifically adding in things like "the plane is on the ground" and "the building is under construction and not existing" which I would assume you would take and say "the person is not living-yet, but will be".

Even so, it may false equivalency in your mind, but the disputed point of this forum would still be the very fact that in your mind makes the comparison false, that is whether or not there is a living person within the womb. Thus rendering your accusation of false equivalence moot.

 

Your assertion that reproduction is the sole "purpose" of sex is a fallacy.

Most folks who are not interested in having children still engage in sex.

 

Whether or not they do does not change that its purpose is to create life. Again, a cars original purpose is to be used to travel in. It can be used to run people over, but it this is not its original purpose. Sex may be used by some for enjoyment, but its original and ultimate purpose is to create life. In other words, they may put it to a different use, but the original point of it is still the same and it will often still accomplish that.

I never said "sole purpose" I simply used words such as purpose or ultimate purpose, since its primary function and reason for existing is not enjoyment but reproduction. So no, it is not a fallacy, and you seem to be putting words in my mouth.

 

Says who? You?

Sex is what you make it and if you're infertile it's definitely not gonna be for making kids.

 

Yes I do say so, and basic logic says so. I am sorry if this conflicts with your emotional opinion of what you may want things to be like, but the fact is that the original purpose of something will always be its original and ultimate purpose. Unless of course it has clearly malfunctioned, then its purpose is what ever it can be put to. If anything, you are raising trivial objections to what I am saying due to emotional distaste for it. So no, sex is not what you make it.

I mean goodness gracious, you guys really seem to care far to much about some moments of ecstasy. I mean really, us pro-lifers are fighting for what we believe is necessary to save life. When you get down to it though, past all the insignificant things, pro-choice people just seem to be all about someone being sexually active with anyone and perfectly free of consequences.

Also, long time no see. I can't believe I am actually back here and still seeing the same people I have seen for years, even the person who invited me onto the site. Just wow. To the continuous fight of the mostly internet only politicians and specialists in anything and everything (thank teh googlez).

 

So, you agree that reproduction is only one purpose achieved with sex, and that enjoyment is another?
Would you agree that bonding/intimacy could also be considered such a purpose and that there may be others?
What do you believe makes reproduction more relevant than these other purposes?

Similarly, would you suggest that all cars that can travel from "a to b" are equal, or are there some that are superior because they fulfil additional functions (eg: status symbol, comfort, entertainment, etc)?

 

Oh yeah I remember you from YouTube. Damn that was a long time ago.

 

Damn it woman!!

You go have that baby that yer PAW made inside you cause you know jus how short handed we yall are at the Piggery!!!

AboveAlpha

 

I don't think the first humans said," Hey let's PROcreate! Let's make another human." ...and THEN had sex..... Nope, I bet that's not how sex first happened...

I contend that "pleasure" was the purpose of sex so humans would procreate...

 

already have, so stop asking the same inane questions time after time after time again.

so can a lot of people afford their own security .. however that still doesn't negate the FACT that the state has an obligation to help protect ALL it's citizens.

 

I believe that reproduction is one of the ways sex can be used. I believe that reproduction is the reason sex exists though, thus its primary function. Another user a few posts down mentions that pleasure was put in sex so humans would pro-create. While I am not of the same belief system in how humans came to be, even if this were true it would not change what I am saying. This is because the reason for its initial beginning was still pro-creation. In other words, enjoyment is ultimately a secondary purpose than what its initial function and purpose is.

I would agree that some cars fulfill other roles in addition, but all cars at some point another have their own initial purpose, that is to transport you. As I was saying regarding Actus rea and Mens rea, the intent may be something else, but the acts still occurs. Such as the intent being enjoyment, but the result being pregnancy. Thus, I compared it to manslaughter, in which someones intent is not to kill, but ultimately does so through negligence.

 

Hence why I said the following "all she can do is consent to the pregnancy or not."

No he is accountable for the fact that he consented to his sperm being used, a very different scenario from the woman who consent to the sperm being present, but does not consent to the pregnancy.

She has control over whether she remains pregnant or not, the man has control over whether he engages in sexual intercourse or not, once sexual intercourse occurs and a pregnancy results the man has no further control over what occurs inside the womb . .the woman does. His consent is given at the point he consents to sexual intercourse, the woman has the further option to consent to the pregnancy or not, if she decides to go to term the man has already given consent to that born child.

There are distinct relationships involved, there is the sexual relationship between the man and the woman, the pregnancy relationship between the woman and the fetus and the born child relationship between the man, woman and child.

Again it is not so much about choice and more about consent, while there can be choice without consent there can not be consent without choice.

 

All the DNA, the foundation of the human being that will exist, is already prepared in that single cell and will one day, to the best of our knowledge when the pregnancy is carried through to its logical end, result in a human being unique and separate from any other.

Oh the old burden of proof problem. Where you claim a zygote is not a human being, and because you got to it first, you want to shove it off on me to prove it? Well, developing humans in the womb have for centuries been considered human beings (even Biblical law speaks of executing a man who beating a woman causes her to miscarry, the concept is thousands of years old), so why is it, just suddenly, because of YOUR CLAIM, it isn't? ( I know, technically an appeal to authority, I am just showing why you don't make sense here)

As I said before though, I don't think I necessarily have to prove that, the fact is that stopping pregnancy stops a unique and separate human being from living, or in other words end up as we can logically assume. That is just like the rest of us.

 

Bravo....my wife and I are both "Fixed"....cannot possibly reproduce, and have a very pleasant sex life. Anyone who suffers through the belief that sex is primarily for reproduction...probably does not enjoy it in the first place, and has my pity.

 

Governments aren't obligated to pay for peoples home security.

If a woman has an abortion, the doctor helps her to abort the fetus, not the government. What an inane comment you made.

 

Of course at the end of a pregnancy (if all goes well) a human is the result. This does not mean that the single cell at conception is a human.

Dude - I am not the one wanting to make a law forcing my belief on others through physical violence.

Do you really think we should be making laws on the basis of "Gosh, we can't prove otherwise"

You are claiming a single cell is = to a living human, and wanting to make a law on the basis of this claim.

Of course the onus is on you to prove your claim.

You can not say that stopping pregnancy stops a human being from living unless you can first prove that a living human exists.

One would think that the fact that an entity such as a zygote has no brain might cause you to doubt the veracity of your claim.

Is it possible for something to be a living human without a brain ? Certainly a coroner does not think so. Even entities that were once living humans an have a brain are no longer considered as such if they lack significant brain function.

Perhaps the fact that the zygote is not classified taxonomically as a Homo sapiens might cause some doubt .

Question ? Can something be a living human without being a "Homo sapiens" ?

Can a living human exist without any cells that make up its physical structure (not one single cell) ?

I have given you a couple of arguments against your claim. Arguments you have no response to.

You on the other hand have provided no proof that your claim is true.

Why on earth should your claim be accepted as true such that we should make laws that threaten physical violence on women ?

 

I think you are taking it to literally, it is used to show the way the law discovers the legal cause by virtue of using "but for", a woman jogging in the park at night is a factual cause ie a cause required but not significant enough to be the legal cause, to her being raped, it could be any other scenario for pretty much any crime the steps used by the courts to discover the legal cause remain the same.

That is factually incorrect, in vitro requires no sex, neither does self impregnation.

Based on risk assessment it is not a significant purposeful act .. typically the risk of becoming pregnant from unprotected sexual intercourse is around 2.5%, actually when all factors are taken into consideration the risk factor is less than that, of course the more times unprotected sex occurs the higher the risk factor.

This sounds very much like contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The assumption of risk can, and is, often tied into contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others eg. Consent to incur the risks of rock climbing pertains only to the danger incurred by one's own skill, or lack thereof, in rock climbing, but not to be thrown off the mountain and injured by another person.
The distinction between the assumption of risk and contributory negligence is that the former is viewed as serving one's interests, while the latter is action that does not serve one's interests, so while it might serve one's interests to be involved in a dangerous sport it does not serve one's interests to engage in dangerous activities such as stepping in front of a moving car. For this reason the former is seen as an assumption of risk should they harm themselves while engaging in a dangerous sport, the latter is seen as contributory negligence should they be hit by a moving car.
Women who assume the risk of pregnancy must there for be seen as acting in their own interest, one way is for them to have given their express consent to that condition, in this case the woman is not being harmed by the fetus imposing pregnancy on to her against her will, she may be harmed by the pregnancy, but she does not endure harm by virtue of imposition of pregnancy upon her against her will. This is like a boxer who enter the ring, knowing full well that his opponent will make no effort to protect them from harm, this relationship gives consent to be harmed, however implicitly or tacitly it may be given .. however, that consent can be revoked at any point thus breaking the consensual relationship to be harmed, should the opponent continue to inflict harm after the relationship is broken, the victim would be entitled at that point to state assistance to stop the attack.
It is noted that the vast majority of pregnancies are terminated at the earliest point possible prior to any relationship being established with the fertilized ovum, no tacit agreement therefore ever existed between the woman and the fetus because the woman never consented to the pregnant condition imposed upon her, and even if there were a relationship, and the woman decided to rescind her assumption of risk, she would be entitled to do so. The fertilized ovum's imposition on the woman would be unjustified because she no longer agrees to assume the risks of being harmed.
The assumption of risk can also be seen in cases where people realize that others have created risks yet they voluntarily exposes themselves to those risks, in the context of a pregnant woman it would mean if she has voluntarily agreed to be pregnant, she cannot hold the fetus responsible for harming her, on the other hand, of course, should she not agree to be pregnant, the fetuses harm to her falls outside the parameters of her assumption of risk.
In general even if a woman can be said to have assumed the risk that a fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither would she be bound ergo even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy it would not entitle a fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

You are mistaken the womans body is forced to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, by virtue of the hormones and chemicals released by the fertilized ovum, if the fertilized ovum did not release these hormones and chemicals there would be no pregnancy eg. if the fertilized ovum did not release immune restrictors (similar to those used by the nematode worm) it would be attacked and destroyed by the womans immune system, the fertilized ovum also releases chemicals that effect the woman psychologically. Upon implantation the fertilized ovum invades (and that is the word used in descriptions of implantation) the endometrium with protrusions of trophoblast cells.
There is massive communication between the blastocyst and the endometrium at this stage. The blastocyst signals to the endometrium to adapt further to its presence, e.g. by changes in the cytoskeleton of decidual cells. This, in turn, dislodges the decidual cells from their connection to the underlying basal lamina, which enables the blastocyst to perform the succeeding invasion.
This communication is conveyed by receptor-ligand-interactions, both integrin-matrix and proteoglycan ones.
The protrusions of trophoblast cells that adhere into the endometrium continue to proliferate and penetrate into the endometrium. As these trophoblast cells penetrate, they differentiate to become a new type of cells, syncytiotrophoblast. The prefix syn- refers to the transformation that occurs as the boundaries between these cells disappear to form a single mass of many cell nuclei (a syncytium). The rest of the trophoblasts, surrounding the inner cell mass, are hereafter called cytotrophoblasts.
Invasion continues with the syncytiotrophoblasts reaching the basal membrane beneath the decidual cells, penetrating it and further invading into the uterine stroma. Finally, the whole embryo is embedded in the endometrium. Eventually, the syncytiotrophoblasts come into contact with maternal blood and form chorionic villi. This is the initiation of forming the placenta.

Therefore it can be clearly seen that the only reason the womans body supplies both the nutrition, environment, and many other things for the fetus to exist is due to the fact that the fetus 'forces' her body to adapt.

Ir doesn't matter if the fetus controls it's actions or not, courts already recognize that involuntary actions can cause injury and that a person has the right to defend against those injuries, and with the states help in doing so. The fetus can not be anything other than the source of the actions as a separate person, it is not an inanimate object being manipulated, everything it does is to maintain the pregnancy state of the woman in order to further it's own goal, whether that is intentional or not doesn't matter if it is being done without consent of the person it is being done to.

While the state does have an obligation to defend those who cannot defend themselves this only applies if that person is not the one who is injuring another, the fetus is the one who is causing the injuries, therefore, whether intentional or not, it is the 'attacker' and the woman the 'victim.'

By your logic if you invite a person into your home and they then attack you, you cannot defend yourself against that attack.

A woman does not force a fetus into her womb. She has no choice in whether the sperm fertilizes the ovum. No, because that scenario does not require you to use deadly force to remove them, you can with immediate effect use other methods to remove the said person, the only recourse a woman has to stop the fetus from injuring her immediately is via the use of deadly force, and due to the number of the injuries and the fact they are continuous it justifies her usage of deadly force.

I base it around law because in the end it is in the courts that any decision on the legality of abortion will be made, the morality of it will not be a very relevant factor in that determination, and as I believe that morality is fluid with no universal morals then to use them as a basis for law is arbitrary.
Ultimately Abortion will be decided on legal grounds and constitutional interpretations - as it was for Roe vs Wade.

---------------------------------

Just like to thank you for your measured and civil responses, it is refreshing to see.