Finn dAbuzz wrote:Putting aside other aspects of the issue, I am interested in the notion that there can be issues of morality or legality that exclude one sex or the other from formulating a valid opinion.
Where is the line drawn on this position?
Quite a few men join quite a few women in believing women should not mutilate themselves or commit suicide. Are only the views of women valid in this regard, and do women have a leg to stand on if they assert that men should not mutilate or kill themselves?
What about a 12 year old girl prostituting herself? Here again, only women can weigh in?
I appreciate the argument that abortion should, legally, be the sole decision of the individual mother, but I fail to understand the significance of gender in the standing of opposing voices. Presumably your argument is founded, to one extent or the other, on the premise that since the choice relates to the woman's body, only she should make the decision, but just because women can or have had children should not make their opinions any more valid when it relates to the body of another woman.
Seems to smack of a certain bitter regard for men, and if the genders were switched I suspect you would have quite a few people charging you with misogyny.
Let me assure you, I have no bitterness towards men, at least not for
the ones who are trying to tell me what to do with my own body. For
the others it's more contempt than anything else.
Whatever your morals are pertaining to life, are your own, I do not share them and apparently the majority of people don't share your morals
either, as abortion is legal in this country.
If you don't understand the significance of gender involved in the decision, I suggest you talk to the millions of women who are single mothers and
live on the verge of poverty due to deadbeat fathers. There are exceptions, yes I acknowledge that, yet the majority of single mothers
struggle. Ultimately the children are her responsibility, thus it should
be her responsibility, and hers alone, to decide if she wants to terminate
a pregnancy or not.
This is very simple, and a perfectly legal process. How you perceive
this issue with your own morals is not important, sorry to say. I repeat:
abortion is legalized in the United States!
ebrown_p wrote:I am strongly pro-choice.
However, I find it deeply troubling when women say that abortion is not a man's issue. This is complete bullshit.
This is just part of the near complete devaluing of fatherhood. From conception, to birth, to custody... fathers are simply not considered parents.
When are fathers going to be considered parents?
I believe that abortion should be safe and legal.
I am just saying that fathers have a vested interest in the process of reproduction-- from conception through childhood.
My opinion in this important issue counts damn it.
I couldn't agree more with most of your comments. Men are often/usually overlooked, and while it's not "fair", it's for an obvious reason - SHE'S the one going through the physical side of things, while BOTH of them are (perhaps) doing the emotional aspect. Therefore, it has become HER decision. (Of course, there are other factors involved; this is quite simplistic).
Do you really think, however, that she should put her life on hold for 8-9 months for his sake, ie. that he thinks he wants to be a daddy (esp if it was an 'accident')? That's the question I struggle with. Do you really think she should be 'forced' to birth that baby?
It's a minefield, which is why we're still where we're at on this issue.
Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
I noticed you deliberately or otherwise chose to not answer my questions that directly go to the moral reconciliation that it is a woman's sole choice in a committed relationship.
I'm interested in your thoughts on them.
woiyo wrote:Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
Yes, woiyo, that's how it is. No need to argue though, as it is clearly
defined by law. Perhaps you should read it, and fill in all the empty words.
CalamityJane wrote:woiyo wrote:Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
Yes, woiyo, that's how it is. No need to argue though, as it is clearly
defined by law. Perhaps you should read it, and fill in all the empty words.
There are many things that are clearly defined by law, but people still argue them due their moral views as opposed to legalilties. That is why there have been so many protests over the years on war, marijuana and many other things that people discuss out of passion...not legality.
It is so easy to say that it is ok because it is covered by law.
I actually do think abortion is "wrong," but I also think that forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby is "wrong" as well. I cannot decide which is more "wrong," and the fact that both parents might agree on abortion doesn't help me.
Obviously the mother can, from a legal and practical standpoint, get the abortion if she wants it, but to do so without the concurrence of the husband would likely put an end to the committed relationship.
By definition, a committed relationship should produce concurrence on such a question. The wishes, desires, fears and expectations of each person in the relationship needs to be weighed against one another, and agreement obtained. If they are not, either the relationship didn't exist in the first place of the issue will destroy it.
Obviously, in our hypothetical, the mother doesn't want to have the child. Her reasons could be many and each would have a different bearing on the issue of what she should do.
For instance, let's assume she wants an abortion because she is afraid that the birth will result in her death. This would support her moving forward, and emphasize the selfishness of the father's desires.
But let's assume that she never wanted a child and doesn't want this one, while the father has longed for little else.
Can she go ahead with the abortion? Legally, yes but should she? The conflict has destroyed her relationship with the father but she can go through nine months of discomfort and angst and allow him to be fulfilled as a person. It's hard for me to accept that in such an equation, the mother has the moral advantage.
This was my point - irrespective of the legality of abortion, irrespective of the morality of it, there should be consideration of the wishes of both mother and father.
woiyo wrote:Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
Yes, woiyo, that's how it is. No need to argue though, as it is clearly
defined by law. Perhaps you should read it, and fill in all the empty words.
CalamityJane wrote:woiyo wrote:Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
Yes, woiyo, that's how it is. No need to argue though, as it is clearly
defined by law. Perhaps you should read it, and fill in all the empty words.
Good, so we agree that a women has the right to decide what to do with the life they are carrying in their body. I support your right to decide what to do with the life you carry in your body ,so long as I do not have to pay for the termination of the life in your body, if that is what you decide.
CalamityJane wrote:woiyo wrote:Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
Yes, woiyo, that's how it is. No need to argue though, as it is clearly
defined by law. Perhaps you should read it, and fill in all the empty words.
There are many things that are clearly defined by law, but people still argue them due their moral views as opposed to legalilties. That is why there have been so many protests over the years on war, marijuana and many other things that people discuss out of passion...not legality.
It is so easy to say that it is ok because it is covered by law.
woiyo wrote:CalamityJane wrote:woiyo wrote:Alot of empty word Jane.
Why not be intellectually honest about what is in a womens body . It is a human life and you ant to argue that you should, and only you, should decide what to do with that life that in in your body.
Yes, woiyo, that's how it is. No need to argue though, as it is clearly
defined by law. Perhaps you should read it, and fill in all the empty words.
Good, so we agree that a women has the right to decide what to do with the life they are carrying in their body. I support your right to decide what to do with the life you carry in your body ,so long as I do not have to pay for the termination of the life in your body, if that is what you decide.
Woiyo,
When you make this a debate about money... rather than about morality, you have lost the argument for sure.
Everyone has to pay for things they don't like... some don't like paying for public health, and others don't like paying for the Iraq war or Guantanamo.
There is a valid debate to be had about whether abortion is immoral to the point that it should be prohibited by society. I don't think that it is, but when the argument is about morality, I at least respect the people making it.
A morality that can be bought for a price is not worth anything.
Quote:parasite
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I think that one has to agree that an embryo, and early fetus, qualifies for the definition of a parasite, under the aforementioned definition.
Once the fetus reaches viability, then IMO the rules change. Even so, in the case where the life of the mother is at stake, a partial birth abortion is a sad, but sometimes necessary option. I think that most would agree that if a choice needs to be made, the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus.
An acorn may be a potential oak tree, but it is no tree!
Under the above definition, the fetus is a parasite until the moment it is born.
I'll admit, I am no expert on partial birth abortions. I may not be understanding something. I need some education.
As the name implies to me, the fetus is already partially born.
Finn, Thanks for taking my questions seriously and giving them some thorough consideration. It is the kind of exploration of this issue that we need and not the usual religious, vs scientific, etc arguments it usually reduces to. The test of a good argument is if it is continued when the question is flipped and the argument still stands.
Most of these discussions only frame the argument within the limited scope of it being only the woman's decision vs. the father's wishes with the woman wanting to end the pregnancy and the father not having any say in the matter. Usually when I flip the question and ask it again, it gets ignored or it makes people rethink and explore the basis for their "knee-jerk" argument.
Knowing that you have done such exploration with your argument makes me more receptive to giving it consideration.
Quote:I actually do think abortion is "wrong," but I also think that forcing a woman to have an unwanted baby is "wrong" as well. I cannot decide which is more "wrong," and the fact that both parents might agree on abortion doesn't help me.
That's the point that the adoption alternative is usually raised. It ignores, however, the medical stress and trauma to the mother's body and the financial costs of bringing a baby to term and giving birth. It turns the female body into a mindless breeding mechanism.
At this point, the argument about birth control and abstinence is brought in. However, this doesn't apply to the married couple who is already using birth control that fails. No form of birth control is perfect.
In the case of a mother wanting the pregnancy but the father wanting her to terminate it, you wrote:
Quote:Obviously the mother can, from a legal and practical standpoint, get the abortion if she wants it, but to do so without the concurrence of the husband would likely put an end to the committed relationship.
You reverted back to the orignal scenario here rather than addressing the flip. In this second scenario, it is the mother who wants to keep the pregnancy and the father who wants to terminate it.
You're absolutely right - I misread your question.
However my answer remains substantially the same. Much will depend on the motivations of each. If the father wanted the child aborted because he was fairly certain the pregnancy would kill his wife, his moral position is somewhat loftier than if he simply didn't want to cut back on spending money on his personal indulgences.
Quote:By definition, a committed relationship should produce concurrence on such a question. The wishes, desires, fears and expectations of each person in the relationship needs to be weighed against one another, and agreement obtained. If they are not, either the relationship didn't exist in the first place of the issue will destroy it.
Agreed, but that isn't the case in the second scenario.
We don't know that. You haven't detailed the scenario beyond the father wants abortion and the mother does not.
You're avoiding the question.
Just misread it.
No agreement has been achieved between the married couple. If the father's wishes are to be given equal weight in the decision when the father wants the pregnancy and the mother wishes to terminate it, does the reverse hold true? If the father does not want the pregnancy but the mother does, should she terminate the pregnancy based on his wishes just as she is expected to go through with the pregnancy if he does not want her to terminate it?
Not at all. I'm not suggesting for one second that the father's opinion always wins the day no matter what it is. I do tend to favor the side that promotes allowing the baby to live, but not always, and it's possible that the desire to allow the baby to live is not moral at all.
Quote:Obviously, in our hypothetical, the mother doesn't want to have the child. Her reasons could be many and each would have a different bearing on the issue of what she should do.
For instance, let's assume she wants an abortion because she is afraid that the birth will result in her death. This would support her moving forward, and emphasize the selfishness of the father's desires.
But let's assume that she never wanted a child and doesn't want this one, while the father has longed for little else.
Can she go ahead with the abortion? Legally, yes but should she? The conflict has destroyed her relationship with the father but she can go through nine months of discomfort and angst and allow him to be fulfilled as a person. It's hard for me to accept that in such an equation, the mother has the moral advantage.
This was my point - irrespective of the legality of abortion, irrespective of the morality of it, there should be consideration of the wishes of both mother and father.
This is still part of your answer to my second question and erroneously reverts back to the origianl scenario rather than addressing the flipped scenario.
Yes, but my answer really is not dependent upon which partner takes which position.
Again, I tend to lean towards supporting whomever wishes to keep the baby, but this doesn't unerringly validate such a position nor discount the validity of the opposing position.
You haven't been flippant or rude, just evasive, but I think it is unintentionable. You're just too used to making the argument from only one perspective. Flip it around and see if your basis for the argument still holds when it is the father who does not want the pregnancy and the mother wishes to keep it.
I certainly do not believe that the father's wishes should be the decisive factor, but I do not believe that the mother's wishes should be either.
Even in the event that the dispute destroys the relationship, the right to decide doesn't necessarily default to the mother --- morally (obviously it does legally).
If we can fashion a highly improbable, but possible hypothetical where the moral foundation of each parents position are identically sound, and yet they remain opposed I think a tie goes to the baby. If the woman wants to abort and she invokes her legal right to go forward with it, I might be disappointed but I would never suggest that her decision automatically implies immorality.
My problems with CJ's comments were multiple
1) She asserted that a man's opinion on this issue is irrelevant
2) She has taken a convenient comfort in the certainty of legality that I doubt she really holds.
3) She asserts that no matter why the woman wants an abortion it is OK that she gets one.
Many of the positions people take are dependent upon the way the issue is framed.
I appreciate consistency, and I expect that many self-described pro-choicers would have considerable difficulty with abortions that were performed because
* The parents believed the child was homosexual
* The parents believed the child would never become a super-model
* The parents believed the child would be too dark skinned
If one accepts the position that a woman's choice to abort is (legally and morally) inviolate then one must accept the three instances above and any others that conflict with parallel morals.
Does the Right to Choose really trump all other issues of morality?
Hope you'll take the time to reply. I think this can be a constructive exploration for all of us.
