Sivad wrote:So you mindlessly respect people because they're women? Yeah, I don't do that. I do what the situation calls for, whatever is necessary and warranted by the circumstances.
You do you, Davis.
I think people should respect their sex partners, and if they do not, they should not be having sex with them.
Your proverbial mileage may vary.
Sivad wrote:Yes you are, you're pretending that the person who was going to do a incredibly irresponsible and unethical thing is the victim simply because that person is a woman and the person that did the right thing was some kind of abuser. We should all be condemning women who have children they're not equipped to care for and especially those who do it with unwilling partners. Women who do that are reprehensible people and they should be treated as such.
That's not being an adult, that's being a damn fool. Adults do the responsible thing, not the politically correct thing.
So you had sex with a woman whom you did not respect.
You got her pregnant.
You pressured her into getting an abortion.
And somehow I am the immoral one; because I treat others with respect and stand by my actions.
That was amusing.
——————————
Drlee wrote:I have read your posts. I reject your argument. I have told you that before.
You might have some kind of a point if you considered a child a person at the moment of conception but that would be a difficult argument nonetheless.
No, you have not read my posts. Or if you have, you have not done so carefully enough to make intelligent criticisms.
For example, my argument about security of person is just as valid if we assume that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
And while you may reject the notion that child supprt and abortion rights are not logically connected, you have not shown how my argument is incorrect.
As I have said ad nauseam, to compel a man to pay child support after conception is ALWAYS a woman's choice. Even in the case of a hooker who fails to use protection, she could still, through the courts, compel a man to pay for a PREGNANCY which she is 100% capable of preventing. I will even go further.
No. The right to child support is not chosen by women. It is chosen by the capitalist state as a means of providing support for the child.
The man is the one with the choice.
If he chooses to raise the kid, he does not have to pay child support.
Women want to have equal rights with men. Then they should have equal responsibilities with men. Many people make the small-minded argument that a man can prevent the eventuality that he will be confronted with child support by not having sex. (Condoms are far from 100% effective by the way.) This is true. But it in no way relieves the woman of the same level of responsibility. In fact women have options not open to men. They can use a plethora of mechanical and chemical methods of preventing pregnancy, the day after pill, abortion, adoption, sterilization and, of course, abstinence and still they want to be able to keep a child against the will of the father and force said father to pay for it. Even when, as I have already pointed out there could well be an argument often made by women that forcing the man to be a father may be detrimental to his health and therefor an imposition on his (hopefully) equal personal sovereignty.
The fact is that the unjust imposition of responsibility on men who only wish the same rights (choices) that women have, is remnant of the patriarchy so many women wish men would abjure.
Now POD. You have not "dealt with all of this". That is a cop-out. I have read your posts. It may surprise you that everyone is not convinced by your arguments but it does not surprise us. If you failed to carry the day with your arguments then either let them stand and walk away or try to do better. Falsely accusing anyone who does not agree with you or who expands on an argument you feel you have overcome of not reading your posts is at the same time arrogant, insulting and intellectually dishonest.
You still have not addressed my arguments. Do you need me to provide a link to them again?
Then this:
Well either you did not read his posts or you are unaware of the nature of respect.
First of all, Sivad's actions are not one of someone with contempt for the woman. He clearly states that he felt that she was not prepared to be a mother either emotionally or financially. He was man enough to admit that he was not inclined to be a father and (with apologies in to him in advance) perhaps not at a state of maturity to undertake such a responsibility. He quite correctly disabused her of any notion that he would be a custodial parent or even wish to have an intimate role in her life or that of the child. Then he offered to pay for the early term abortion and went with her to have it. Sounds like a very mature way of handling a very distasteful situation.
But here is the thing and I thank Sivad for pointing it out. There was nothing to stop Sivad from doing what a great many men do. They simply agree to the minimum of child support, move out of town, and participate in the raising of the child by stroking a check and maybe pontificating every now and then. Maybe a present at Christmas and a trip to Disneyland when/if they begin to feel guilty.
Circling back, Sivad and I have just presented a pretty compelling argument for including child support in the argument about abortion. It is simply a piece of a very large puzzle.
If you wish to ignore the fact that he called this woman reprehensible, unethical, and irresponsible, go ahead.
Your ability to ignore his moral failings, while magnifying the supposed immoral actions of myself and this woman, is amusing.
Let me ask you POD. Suppose I got some woman pregnant. Stranger things have happened. Now the woman is deciding whether or not to keep the child. She works at Walmart. She has no health care coverage to speak of. She knows, because I have told her, that I have no intention of leaving my wife. There is the setup. So are you going to tell us that her decision to have or not have the baby, given that I am fairly well to do, easily able and willing to pay for the delivery and would be required to pay substantial child support is not a factor in her decision too abort or keep the child? Do you really believe we are stupid enough to grant your assertion that "abortion rights and child support are not related logically and should not be tied together." Yes you are speaking of abstract "rights". I get that. But abortion is not an absolute right. It is a very limited one. As we the people who will determine the law on this subject ponder what to do, we absolutely should consider the money whether prenatal care at government expense, charity contributions, adoption subsidies or compulsory child support.
I understand, POD, that you wish to make the very easy argument that simply declaring abortion a right solely to be exercised by a woman, in great earnest or by passing whim. You don't get to do that because the overwhelming majority of people simply will not let you. Facts require you to answer much deeper and more nuanced arguments before you carry the day. So get at it.
Your characterization of Sivad's deeply personal, no doubt harrowing experience as simple disrespect for a woman simply will not due.
You are conflating two separate (but related) things and treating them as a single situation.
First thing is the actual pregnancy, and the second thing is responsibility for the child after it is born.
1. Now, in terms of the pregnancy, things are already vastly unequal simply due to biology. The woman does it all: takes all the risks, has to quit drinking and drugs, has to deal with all sorts of changes to her body, etc. The man does none of this.
If you want to appeal to some sort of equality argument where both sides have an equal say in all aspects, you have to explain why the man (who does none of the work and takes none of the risks) should get as much say as the person who actually does everything.
The other fact that your equality argument fails to consider is that the woman will know she is pregnant before the man does, and this is again due to biology. She can simply go get an abortion and never tell the dad and no one would be any the wiser. This is a simple fact. All your appeals to social justice and equality will not change this fact.
So, while it is amusing to see you guys make egalitarianism and social justice arguments like SJWs, facts are facts and you might as well make laws that are consistent with actual facts.
2. Now, the second thing you are discussing is responsibility for the child. If the woman decides to give the child up for adoption, this is a moot point, so I will only look at the situation where the woman decides to keep the child and the man is on the hook for child support.
In that situation, there is still a vast inequality if the woman is actually raising the kid and the man is just sending money. One actually has to raise a kid, while the other simply pays money. And having custody of children imposes many obligations that are not present when one is merely responsible for child support payments.
Please note that the amount of financial loss for the full time parent is much higher than the financial burden for the one paying child support. Especially if you include the amount of money lost in terms of lost time spent on your career.
Now, if you really want equality in this situation, both parents would have equal custody, and would spend an equal amount of time with the kid, and would both work and neither would pay child support unless there was some huge difference in their incomes.
And again, there are facts that you need to deal with that trump all this whining about equality and social justice for men who want consequence free sex. Babies cost money. Unless you want to do what Decky suggests and enact socialist policies, you have to make someone pay, and the logical choice is the person who actually decided to engage in sex. In this day and age, everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy.
But you think the father should be able to unilaterally place all the burden on the woman in at least one of these situations in the name of “equality”. Lol.
Drlee wrote:OK. Let's lay to rest POD's assertion that these abortions simply do not happen. Here are the facts according to a 2004 NIH study: (My words for brevity sake. Few here understand how to read these studies anyway.)
12% of all abortions occur after 16 weeks gestation.
In Texas in 2003 there were 3066 late term abortions in Texas alone. (And Texas has very restrictive late term abortion laws.)
Please note that I was discussing abortions after the unborn child is viable, and this is usually considered to be near 27 weeks.
If you wish to redefine “late term abortion” to mean “after 16 weeks”, then feel free, but please note that this is a separate discyand does not refute my claim.
Also please note that I previously pointed out this error in definitions, and your habit of not providing links to any of these studies, and that you have not addressed either of these criticisms.
Since you have not addressed these errors since the last time I pointed them out, there is no reason to assume you are not making the same error in terms of redefining “late term abortions”.
Please provide a link to this study.
POD Said:
Well now POD you can finally admit that it is indeed happening.
More proof?
NIH: In Georgia in 2012 - 2013 there were 2010 abortions performed after 20 weeks. (More than half of them on black women by the way.) Of these 390 were performed after 24 weeks.
Please provide a link to this study.
How about overseas?
Do we note "health of the mother" mention?
Enough. POD must present evidence to support his preposterous claim or withdraw it. He is unlikely to do that. That would require a commitment to intellectual honestly rare on the left or right.
Here is the link to the study you quoted but for which you did not credit the author:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728860/Please note that this is a study looking at abortions in India before 20 weeks. This is, like all the other studies you erroneously use to supoosedly contradict my point, before viability and therefore does not actually refute my point.
——————————
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:To be honest I haven't looked very hard, but as mentioned in my previous post, even if they are not happening that doesn't support your conclusion that women would not want them, as there could be restrictions on doctors to carry them out.
I can't remember you showing evidence that the causes for infanticide and late term abortion are always different. I strongly doubt this is true.
Well, if there is no evidence that women are having elective late term abortions after viability, this criticism will be dismissed as unsupported speculation.
No, the unborn have fewer rights than born children. You'll be in trouble if you endanger a born child by exposing it to drugs or alcohol, for instance, whereas a pregnant woman will not. The laws generally require a parent to be more responsible than a pregnant woman.
Again, no.
Breastfeeding women often consume drugs and alcohol and there is no legal problem with that.
Suffice it to say that born children do not have the right to use their parents’ bidies as life support systems without the parents’ consent.
Sure, you can refuse to debate this on my terms. I just wanted to make it explicit that that's what you are doing while expecting me to accept yours.
There is a difference between a strawman (what you did) and changing the frame of the debate.
I didn't realise that that is your central point since you insist on using an uncommon phrase for it, but if you think that we have an absolute right to do with our bodies what we want then I can just repeat that this is not the case in any country on this planet.
I used the term as used by the SCC.
Please note that I never argued that this was an absolute right.
Right, which is why we cannot exclude the possibility that women would want to have an elective abortion even later. My original point stands.
Your point about elective abortions after viability would stand if there was no experiment where women could legally get such an abortion and women never did.
But we do have such an experiment. And it contradicts your hypothesis that women would want to have an elective abortion after viability.
———————————
AFAIK wrote:The right to life implies that a pregnant woman be compelled to carry the fetus to term. I don't understand why you consider abortion rights to be an absolute and don't even acknowledge the fetuses right to life. I'm pro-choice but I think it's reasonable to tell a woman who has chosen not to abort 150 times or more that she is now committed to carrying the child to term.
You are correct that the right to life implies that a pregnant woman be compelled to carry the fetus to term.
However, I do not consider abortion rights to be absolute. It would be more correct to say that I think the limits on the right of security of person (and the right to life) should be applied equally across the board. Everyone should have the same rights and limits to rights.
Imagine a famous violinist was dying of some weird disease and the only cure was to have this violinist attached to someone else for nine months in such a way that the other person’s actual blood, organs, tissue, etc. is keeping the violinist alive.
Now, would it be legal or moral for the state to force someone to be attached to the violinist for nine months?
Obviously not. While the violinist has a right to life, it is not an absolute right.
Now, we are expected to allow the state to force women to use their bodies to save the fetus. Do you see how this gives the unborn child more rights than the violinist?
So, if we wanted to impose a limit on the right to security of person (which is the basis of abortion rights in Canada), we would have to make a rational argument for doing so. Saving someone’s life is a very good reason, which is why it would make sense to argue that pregnant people should be compelled to bring unborn babies to term.
But that would also mean that we would allow the violinist to compel someone to save his life.
——————————