Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

The only reason I am "ignoring" your quesitons is because it takes a while for me to articulate very detailed and specific arguements.

 

You didn't say anything about "innocent", Sam. You asked about an "incompetent" person.

This is a bit of a problem for you. You say one thing....then try to argue something completely different from what you said.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The woman had control when she had sex.

How do you know?

I beg to differ, from a logical perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

When I said "incompetent", I meant innocent.

Partially because I have hard time articulating thoughts when I debate (partially because of my nervousness).

 

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are---Larry the Cable Guy

- - - Updated - - -

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."---"Through the Looking Glass"

 

and as already shown the act of sexual intercourse has no relevance to whether fertilization takes place, they are separate acts.

how do I know what, that injuring someone without their consent is illegal, easy look up any case where a person has injured another and see it for yourself.

That would be a novelty.

 

then keep your inane comments to yourself until you can "articulate very detailed" answer. BTW I didn't ask you for an argument I asked you to detail your rationale for your comments .. twice ignored so far.

 

Then why do you post first and THINK second?...try it the other way around and it won't look like you just can't answer those inconvenient questions.....

 

BTW, if Sam tries his "What does the word ____ mean?" line.....remind him that just last week he cited "the dictionary" in one of his posts. So this seeming "ignorance" of the meaning of words and simple phrases....won't fly any more.

 

[MENTION=61087]Fugazi[/MENTION]

Shifting the cause of the war for independence to enlightenment ideas (wrong in the first place there) still doesn't change the fact that the ideas involving personal liberties are still moral ones. They were decisions based upon what people thought aught to be, whether they were atheistic or theistic. The same with women's suffrage, as the law said women were not allowed to vote. They changed the law by amending the constitution. The government had no legal right to tax income either, thus the law was changed so income could be tasked. These decisions weren't based off the law, in each case the law was simply changed due to opinion. You have yet to provide adequate counter argument to this.

In another amazing use of logic you have somehow assumed is that women have no choice in fertilization. This really causes me to wonder, how on earth did the sperm which caused fertilization end up there in the first place?

1. A sperm's function is to fertilize an ovum.

2. A woman allows sperm to be present in her body.

3. Becoming present in her body, sperm continues in its function.

To say she is not responsible for fertilization is nonsense. You cannot fire a gun at someone, kill them, and then say that you had no choice in the bullet's path. You cannot excuse yourself by saying the bullet willed itself to kill, you directed it, just as sperm is directed.

Again, the problem with you argument is thus. You suppose I can change what the law says with what the law says. The law becomes unchangeable and supreme then because I have no argument against it but force of arms. To show the law is not right I must have "enough proof and reason to establish that as fact". Where does this proof and reason come from, if not the law?

I read everything you presented, and as I said before, I do no agree with much of it. Whether or not biologists or lawyers claim it true by their opinions or definitions. I do not agree that pregnancy is an injury, I do not agree that pregnancy is caused by the actions of the person in the womb alone, nor do I agree that ,should it be an injury of the sort supposed, that deadly force would be the moral option in dealing with it. These are just a few of many things.

You certainly seem to be supposing other peoples opinions have a special sort of elevation above my own. If you want a direct answer though, I can only say that yes I do believe mien is superior. As to whose should bear the greater merit, and what should decide that I am not sure. Well a long time ago we could just shoot at each other to decide that. I don't think either of us would want that though would we? Really, this all falls into our core beliefs, which I think would ultimately lead to a theist vs atheist debate.

A debate I don't have the time or patience for. I am already growing increasingly tired of this, and I have been since I asked you to shorten your posts. At this point, I am considering dropping the entire argument.

 

firstly I shifted nothing, you are moving the goalposts, my response above is a direct reply to your assertion of the following;

The constitution itself. It was completely brought about through public opinion since public opinion brought about the war which brought forth the United States.

correlation does not equal causation and while the sperm is a necessary factual cause it is not the legal cause . .already been through this, though it would appear you choice to ignore it.

A bullet has no independent action, it will move in the direction you point the gun, if the same were true of a sperm it would never reach any further than the vagina. A bullet does not change direction, nor is it moving through it's own "will".

Again you are trying to misrepresent what I am saying, I have not said that you require the law to change the law, I said you require enough proof and reason to establish that the law in question is in fact wrong. This is exactly what happened with Roe, with slavery and with women's voting. Arguments were given from both sides as to why those laws should remain or not.

What would be your reasoning to over turn abortion laws, on what basis would you argue in the Supreme Court that the Roe decision was in fact incorrect .. you don't need existing laws to do this .. but . .you do require enough proof and reason.

If you did we wouldn't be having this debate.

So you would dismiss the arguments of the subject specialists, based on what exactly?

Which I have already proven it is.

something I have never said, so misrepresentation again.

and your moral objections have no standing in a court, which is where any future decisions on abortion will be made.

Yet you cannot give any compelling proof or reason why.

No I give more credence to those who are subject specialists, unless you are a biologist and a lawyer that is .. are you?

My or your core beliefs have no bearing on how any future decision on abortion will be reached, that will be decided on the merits of the arguments given by both sides in court, just as it was in 1973 for Roe.

Then walk away as so far there is nothing you have put down that in any way effects the arguments put forward, you have based everything to do with this on what you feel is right and nothing else.

 

Why does it matter if I quoted the dictionary in one of my posts?

 

He explained it in the post you quoted. Didn't you READ the post you quoted?

 

This has gone down a strange path in any case.

1) The woman is responsible for allowing the sperm insider her if she consents to sex.

So what. This does not mean a woman is consenting to pregnancy. That is what birth control is for.

If an accidental pregnancy does happen the woman is not obliged or responsible (on the basis of consenting to sex) to continue the pregnancy.

In fact, the responsible thing to do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy is to have an abortion as soon as possible.

In the early stages of pregnancy the process of the creation of a human has not advanced very far and so sooner is better.

 

I don't see how this changes anything. The constitution was brought about through public opinion (again, enlightenment ideas would have been an issue of public opinion), such opinion was based upon moral ideas (such as enlightenment ideas of personal liberty), not legal ones. Hence everything I said. The final conclusion is that laws indeed are based entirely upon the opinion of the public, and that those opinions are ultimately based upon moral principles and ideas.

Yes, we have been through this, and every argument you presented was flawed.

You have clearly never used a firearm, and if you have it must have been point blank. Yes, a bullet changes direction, quite a bit actually (depending on rain and conditions on the day), and no this fact alone does not take away the blame upon the user when he shoots it at someone and kills them. A radar guided missile, even with its own computer system that aims itself to target, still must have someone to push the button. That person who fires the missile takes blame. If not, since the missile moving through its own "will" (the same way as a sperm essentially) I guess it would be fine of me to fire such missiles into the sky and not take any legal blame if I hit something.

Which I have provided. That is that the presence of the person in the womb is not their of their own will, but forced into such a situation. Besides this I have argued regarding the injury incurred upon the person in the womb by the mother, but you have given petty excuses to these arguments regarding the mothers body doing the action which incur such injury even should the person in the womb not be present, which changes nothing in regards to the fact that the mother's body still does such things, and still causes injury to said person.

For the most part, you have simply said it is, and listed a few of the effects upon the mother's body. I simply haven't argued against it.

But in using those peoples ideas to establish what is fact, you still argue from authority, or make an appeal to authority. It is ok for you to believe them more than I do, or to agree with their opinions more than I do, but they still do not establish fact. Especially in something so subject to debate even among said specialists.

Such depends on many things. Considering the country you live in, your ideas certainly don't. Still, considering it was once legal in Carthage to leave a child in Moloch's lap, and legal in Rome to leave a child to the wolves, and such is despised today (even by people like you), the future holds something neither of us will understand or can predict.

So no, you cannot logically say such a thing, neither you or I know the truth on the matter. You can have the opinion of such, and I won't argue with it, because my opinion would be as weak as yours.

 

Because now you can't say "What does the word ____ mean?"...when you get stuck for answers to questions and you try to change the subject, Sam.

- - - Updated - - -

Sam has a big futture in Rightwing Radio some day. I could see him as another Sean Hannity.

 

As it seems we are just going to go backwards and forwards with you saying one thing and I saying another then I shall just address one comment of the above.

I can quite faithfully say that the any changes to abortion laws will be done through the courts based on the arguments given by both sides and if those laws are constitutional, the moral opinion of the masses will have no bearing on that decision, regardless of how that moral opinion is in the future. Your supreme court does not make decisions based on morality it makes them based on the constitution, and neither do your lower courts makes decisions based on morality they make theirs on compelling proof and reason.

There is actually one further thing I will comment on

In the initial comment I made I provided you with a link to the whole argument, within that argument were citations and references to biological facts, current laws and court precedences .. I have yet to see anything, apart from a single wiki link, from you to support any of your arguments, and although you may consider this as an appeal to authority it is in fact the reality of how any future decisions on abortion laws will be made.

 

I know what the courts of my country makes their decision on and I know how my own country operates. Indeed, the supreme court and the lower courts makes their decisions based upon the constitution and upon the state law, both of which can be and have been changed.

That said, as I previously mentioned, the future isn't so set in stone. Perhaps in our lifetimes your prediction will be right, but again, neither you or I know. I think its rather brash to say the opinions of the masses will never have any bearing on that decision in the future, since if the vast majority were morally against or for abortion, the decisions of judges essentially would be at the point of a sword, and at that point, quite pointless. ( its lame humor, I know)

It is not entirely a fallacious appeal to authority, though there are certainly things which would make it so. I simply dispute the so called "facts" (which I believe are mostly opinions of definitions) and the current laws.

Hence our argument, which I now see (as I think you do as well), isn't going anywhere. You are bent upon what is and what you believe will always be since it is advantageous to you, considering your side of this argument is so often called "liberal" its rather ironic that you should be so conservative isn't it? Thus, I shall take my leave.

 

I think this is where we have a little confusion, I have never said that laws cannot be changed, in fact I know they can .. but .. you cannot change a law without compelling reasons to do so, morality is not a compelling reason. As I have said before homosexuality and same-sex marriage are seen as morally wrong (in some polls) and even where states have voted against same sex marriages the courts have/are over turning same sex marriage bans, this tells me that the morality of the majority has little bearing on the courts decisions.

Yep agreed, the future is not set in stone, though I doubt that the judicial method will change that much unless there is some sort of revolution or a new constitution is forthcoming.

I don't think anything I have written is an appeal to authority - though I would add in here that your opinion on the masses influencing future decisions comes very close to an appeal to popularity, as far as I am aware the USA is not subject to mob rule.

I agree, would like to say thank you for the discussion (though a little heated at times) and hope we "cross swords" again some time.

BTW : I am considered quite conservative in my own country, though I would place myself as a conservative on economics and a liberal on social issues.

 

Homosexuality/same sex marriage is not evil like abortion is. abortion harms an innocent child.

 

It is difficult for me to understand folks who are shown the fallacy of their claim and yet still continue to make that claim as if was true.

What is it that makes you persist in this lie ? It is one thing to lie to others, but it is quite something else to knowingly lie to yourself.

What's up with that ?

 

At this point in time Sam you have nothing of relevance to say, until you do I shall ignore you.

 

Why should men have any say in abortion? In the instance where a man doesn`t want a child, he should have equal rights, and be able to demand a termination of the pregnancy.

 

Nope, because he is not the one who the pregnancy directly effects. His contribution to pregnancy ends at the point where sperm enters the vagina.

no person may have domain over another, that is slavery.

 

Whats your standard of "relevance"? I feel as if every time I explain why I believe aborton should be illegal, you call it irrelevant.

 

Because you bring in irrelevant ideas ...like the reason women have abortions........the fetus/embryo being "innocent"....what the bible says....