Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban - Page 30 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14930888
Nobody here has the remotest idea why each individual woman chooses to end an unwanted pregnancy.


Nonsense. We know why they (as a group) say they do. I posted it above.

There is absolutely no reason why they should know, because it's none of their business.


On the contrary. As the maker of laws (voter) I have a very good reason to consider this. Not, perhaps individually, but as an aggregate.

Her body, her choice - that is the bottom line. No other person's body is involved.


This is untrue. Patently. Her choice could condemn a man to a couple of decades of servitude. Further. The deeply held beliefs of many people are offended or enhanced by her decision. And the public exchequer is tapped to pay for her decision. She can claim the sanctity of her person as long as she wishes to extend this right to the father and be willing to pay for her decision to keep children herself. It seems women can get over being a protected class.
#14930899
Drlee wrote:This is unfair POD. Cheap shot.


@Sivad has been clear about his contempt for the woman he got pregnant.

I find it odd that you would get upset with me for pointing out his lack of respect, but you seem perfectly fine with his disrespect for a woman he got pregnant.

I do not know about you, but I was raised to treat women with respect, especially if I am physically intimate with them.

You want to put all of the responsibility on the man and none on the woman. Women endlessly carp about how this is their body but then they want to put responsibility for how they use it on men. If they want to be the sole decision maker about their bodies then they can accept sole responsibility.


No, I am not trying to put all the responsibility on the man.

Misinterpretation of my words in order to attack my character is a cheap shot and unfair.

Understand that a woman's decision to carry a child to term is either a moral one or it is not. If women want to take some religious notion of a father's role in raising children out of the picture and deny him any role in the decision to keep the baby then they have to accept that men will be equal partners in the decision. Your idea, that men have to make the choice when a woman offers her body to them and then forever keep quiet and pay does not stand the test of reason.

If we are to accept that early term abortions are nothing more than a personal choice by women then they can make the choice and forever hold their peace. Now if, for some reason, religious or otherwise, a man wishes to pay for a child born out of wedlock then that is his decision. That the state would compel him to pay for 20 years based solely on the whim of a woman to keep a child is to impose some sort of moral value on everyone. Further. To force him to unwillingly take a role is raising the child only compounds the offense against reason.

I am pro-choice during the first trimester or thereabouts. That does not mean that I believe that a woman has the right to impose either her religious beliefs or simple whim on a man. She can ask. No harm in that. But expecting the government to make the decision without consulting the man is a violation of any notion of individual rights.

On Edit:

By the way. This whole idea of support for bastard children was an invention of the patriarchy. It smacks of "damaged goods". The necessity for any kind of support for bastard children by noncustodial fathers was made unnecessary by the rise of women in the marketplace and the absolute right to abortion that women in great numbers seem to want.

Now if you were to argue that abortion should be banned in every case except the health of the mother then I would gladly support compelling the father to pay.


I have already expalined to you why abortion rights and child support are not related logically and should not be tied together.

Let me know when you address it.

If you need another link to my argument, I will provide it.

Drlee wrote:I have again and again given you an example when we do exactly this. An example when we us "the body of another person for (our) own ends. In fact we use it when the consequences are far more likely to provide permanent damage or death. All male adults of the US are subject to having their bodies used this way. It is called Selective Service, or the draft. It is not voluntary. One cannot be excused for inconvenience or danger to his person.

One could make a good case for considering the Fireman, Policeman, coal miner, fisherman or any number of other dangerous jobs. These people, like fertile women, have the absolute right to not get themselves into a dangerous or just inconvenient situation in the first place. They could avoid these jobs. Or, seeing the inconvenience of the job resign right away. Yet once they are in these jobs, though an army of people try to keep them safe, they are still expected to do the dangerous and inconvenient work.

I will continue to use the term "convenience". The statistics on danger to the mother are pretty convincing. A woman "forced" to give birth is doing something 4 times safer than driving a truck and 7 times safer than delivering pizzas or merchandise to stores. In fact, if a woman stays home during pregnancy and reduces the amount she drives, childbirth is one of the safest things to do.


I have already address this.

Please go back and reread the applicable post.

A bit further:

Less than 1% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother. Full stop. Even so it is a real thing. One in 100 pregnancies is a considerable number of lives saved.

But, pay attention. Saving the life of the mother is NOT the same thing as "for the health of the mother".

Why do women have abortions:

    Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four. Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems. A multivariate analysis showed young teenagers to be 32 percent more likely than women 18 or over to say they were not mature enough to raise a child and 19 percent more likely to say their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Unmarried women were 17 percent more likely than currently married women to choose abortion to prevent others from knowing they had had sex or became pregnant. Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71 percent attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or parents that they were pregnant. A multivariate analysis revealed that respondents under age 18 were 39 percent more likely than older women to have delayed because they were afraid to tell their parents or partner. NIH.

There folks, is pretty strong evidence that my use of the word "convenience" is not far off of the mark. Perhaps it is a bit catty to use it but you pick a better word. Or just go with the above. It is damning enough.

Fun fact. "To save the life of the mother was allowed in all states before Roe V. Wade"

Let's throw a monkey wrench into this.

Soon someone will talk about the "mental health" of the mother. They will, in essence, argue that the inconvenience of having a child rises to pathology. I could make the case for just about any job but certainly being a mother is a hard job. One that shouldn't be taken lightly. But look at the above:

"About two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child".

So economic hardship is a good reason to have an abortion? OK. Then consider this. What if the father of the child makes that argument? Can he force an abortion for the same reason the woman can? Pro abortion advocates assert an absolute right to have one without an excuse. But we look a the why's and see what they really are. Why should a woman be able to impose financial responsibilities on a man without his consent when she reserves to herself the right to abort a child for the same reason?

    Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities,

A man can make the same argument, can't he? Especially if he intends to share in the parenting. When these women use this excuse to have an abortion it does not mean that at some other time or in some other circumstances she might choose to have the baby. These reasons are simply convenience. They are not "not ever" they are "not now". Why can't the father make the same case and force an abortion?

I do mean "force an abortion". Pro-abortion advocates argue that a fetus before birth is not a person. It is simply some goo inside of a woman. So why can't a man simply assert that it is as much his goo as it is hers and require it to be purged? I am not persuaded that I should think much of the "invasion of person" such a procedure would require is much in the face of the rather cavalier reasons for abortions present in the latest statistics.

Now add to this the issue of abortion after viability and you can clearly see why anti late term abortion people like myself have a cynical view of this whole issue of personal sovereignty which only applies to pregnant women and nobody else. And remember. Forcing a mother to deliver a child after viability is NOT requiring her to spend a life as a mother. She is free to give the child up for adoption, ask the father to take it (which he may willingly do) or allow another family member to raise it. The options are legion.

Since pro abortion people love to cite rare examples, I will indulge myself in the same thing. A young man gets back from the war. He meets a woman in a bar who has made the immature private decision to not use or ask for birth control. They have sex. She gets pregnant and wants him to be a father forever and pay a near lifetime in child support. He is a responsible person and believes fathers should care for their children financially and personally. Unfortunately his experiences at war have left him with a severe case of PTSD. The stress of having a child and caring for one would damage his mental health. Why can't he exercise one of two options. First to require the woman to have an early abortion. Or failing that, to accept complete responsibility for having and raising the baby. In other words, terminate his parental rights and responsibilities.

I offer all of these examples in this wall of text to, among other things, make an additional point. It all but the rarest of circumstances, abortion is not a health issue. It is an issue of lifestyle and convenience. Overarching this fact are issues of morality. I am uninterested in those of the mother. We can see from the statistics above what a great many of them think about that. I am talking about issues of morality held by the community, the majority of voters in some jurisdictions and those of the other involved party.

Women have rights with regard to their bodies. Those rights are not unlimited. (Or clearly should not be.) Not only when they decided to have an abortion but also when they do not.


I have already addressed all of this.

You are obviously not reading my posts carefully.

Nor have you addressed my criticims of your mistake about using several contradictory definitions of “late term abortion”.

Let me know when you are caught up.

—————————

Sivad wrote:So you were prepared to have a child with every woman you ever slept with? :knife:


I was prepared to deal with the consequences of my actions in a responsible and honourable fashion.

It is called being an adult.

—————————

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I take it that there is no data to answer my questions, so all we can say is that we don't know.

As for my statement that it's difficult to argue that pregnant women would never kill an almost or fully developed unborn child when at least some mothers do kill their born children, this is just applied logic.

Maybe there are laws in Canada that prevent this from happening, e.g. doctors might be held liable if they carried out a late term abortion of a perfectly healthy baby where there's no danger to the mother. Such laws that exclude the mother but not the doctor from liability under certain circumstances exist in Germany, for instance.


Since we both looked hard for evidence that elective late term abortions are happening and neither of us found it, I think we can say that it is probably not happening,

As for the claim that since infanticide is a thing, elective late term abortions must also be, please note that I pointed out that the causes for infanticide are not the same as the cuases for abortions. In fact, free and confidential access to abortion reduces infanticide rates.

K wrote:As I asked another poster in this thread already, why would I discuss this topic on your terms? I won't.

You need to explain to us why parents should accept severe restrictions, including what they can and cannot do with their bodies, if their actions endanger the child, while pregnant women are off limits. After that, you also need to address the fact that abortion involves actively killing an unborn child rather than not intervening to save it.


As long as we agree that the pro lifers want to give extra rights to unborn babies that born people do not enjoy.

Your refusal to defend this inequality is noted.

No, I do not need to explain “why parents should accept severe restrictions, including what they can and cannot do with their bodies, if their actions endanger the child, while pregnant women are off limits”, since I did not argue that.

K wrote:Well, the post you quoted was not directed at you. I know you are busy posting, but these kind of responses give the impression you are just following a template rather than keeping track of what has actually been said.


You made a weird strawman about the right to security of person. This is the central point in my argument. While it was not directed specifically at me, it is an attempt at a direct criticism of my central point.

Except that it was a strawman.

K wrote:Since a large proportion went for an abortion at this (relatively late) stage simply because they couldn't make their mind up, it stands to reason that at least some of them may well do the same even later.


No, it doesn’t.

Drlee’s study was based on California residents where it is impossible to get an abortion later than that.

—————————

AFAIK wrote:@Pants-of-dog
What is your opinion on the precautionary principle? Do you always require proof that people have died before you will intervene to protect them?


I have already addressed this.

My argument is not that we should not create laws until someone dies.

My argument is that the right to security of person implies that abortion should be allowed at all stages of pregnancy. This then creates a situation where viable babies might die. It is an argument of my opponents that this is wrong becuase people might die. And my rebuttal to this criticism is that this has not happened despite the legality.

——————————
#14930901
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not know about you, but I was raised to treat women with respect, especially if I am physically intimate with them.


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.
Last edited by Sivad on 07 Jul 2018 21:00, edited 1 time in total.
#14930906
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I am not trying to put all the responsibility on the man.


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. :knife: 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.


I was prepared to deal with the consequences of my actions in a responsible and honourable fashion.

It is called being an adult.


That's not being an adult, that's being a damn fool. Adults do the responsible thing, not the politically correct thing.
#14930918
I have already expalined to you why abortion rights and child support are not related logically and should not be tied together.


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.

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.

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.

Then this:

@Sivad has been clear about his contempt for the woman he got pregnant.

I find it odd that you would get upset with me for pointing out his lack of respect, but you seem perfectly fine with his disrespect for a woman he got pregnant.

I do not know about you, but I was raised to treat women with respect, especially if I am physically intimate with them.


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.

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.
#14930967
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since we both looked hard for evidence that elective late term abortions are happening and neither of us found it, I think we can say that it is probably not happening,

As for the claim that since infanticide is a thing, elective late term abortions must also be, please note that I pointed out that the causes for infanticide are not the same as the cuases for abortions. In fact, free and confidential access to abortion reduces infanticide rates.

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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that the pro lifers want to give extra rights to unborn babies that born people do not enjoy.

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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I do not need to explain “why parents should accept severe restrictions, including what they can and cannot do with their bodies, if their actions endanger the child, while pregnant women are off limits”, since I did not argue that.

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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You made a weird strawman about the right to security of person. This is the central point in my argument. While it was not directed specifically at me, it is an attempt at a direct criticism of my central point.

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.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Drlee’s study was based on California residents where it is impossible to get an abortion later than that.

Right, which is why we cannot exclude the possibility that women would want to have an elective abortion even later. My original point stands.
#14931018
Pants-of-dog wrote:My argument is that the right to security of person implies that abortion should be allowed at all stages of pregnancy. This then creates a situation where viable babies might die. It is an argument of my opponents that this is wrong becuase people might die. And my rebuttal to this criticism is that this has not happened despite the legality.

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.
#14931072
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.)

POD Said:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Since we both looked hard for evidence that elective late term abortions are happening and neither of us found it, I think we can say that it is probably not happening,


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.

How about overseas?
NCBI: Globally, mid-trimester procedures constitute 10-15% of all abortions being done;[5] a study from Africa indicates that the proportion may be as high as 20%.[6] The few qualitative studies from around the world which have highlighted the causes for second-trimester abortion mention delay in recognizing the pregnancy, barriers to service access and time taken to make a decision.


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.
#14931701
Ter wrote:But that is the natural place of a woman, at the feet of her husband !
Sooner or later I might convert to Islam, it is the only religion that managed to keep the wimmin in check. /s


You don't need to convert away.

Hasidic Judaism should be right up your alley Ter!

Is Lev Tahor still accepting members now Rabbi Helbrans is gone?

Just kidding mate, don't take this seriously. Stay as you are!

Mohammad was a pervert.
#14932521
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. :knife: 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.

——————————
#14932534
snapdragon wrote:All those people claiming pregnancy and childbirth is just an inconvenience should go and try it for themselves.
I'd like to see it.

Nobody here has the remotest idea why each individual woman chooses to end an unwanted pregnancy.

There is absolutely no reason why they should know, because it's none of their business.

Her body, her choice - that is the bottom line. No other person's body is involved.

What about the body of her unborn baby?
#14932612
Pod wrote a faulty analogy about kidnapping and that's not how pregnancy works. Those who do not wish to carry a child to term can;

1- Abstain from sex
2- Use birth control
3- Have an abortion during the first or second trimester

Can you confirm that you understand how sex works? That violinist analogy is a reductio adsurdum.
#14932623
That's not really how the analogy works.

It's about whether any person should be forced to keep another person alive by allowing them to use their body.

As you say, women have the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in theory, but in fact, it's not always that easy.

Some people want to make it as difficult as possible for women to have access to a safe medical or surgical abortion, based on nothing but their own ideas of what is morally right.

They regard abortion as murder, so viewed from that point, the analogy works very well.

@jessup jones

Foetuses aren't people.
#14933628
AFAIK wrote:Pod wrote a faulty analogy about kidnapping and that's not how pregnancy works. Those who do not wish to carry a child to term can;

1- Abstain from sex
2- Use birth control
3- Have an abortion during the first or second trimester

Can you confirm that you understand how sex works? That violinist analogy is a reductio absurdum.


The violinist analogy was not about trying to describe pregnancy. It was an analogy about the limits we place on rights, specifically how we limit the right to life so that it excludes the use of another person’s body without their consent.
#14933653
Pants-of-dog wrote:The violinist analogy was not about trying to describe pregnancy. It was an analogy about the limits we place on rights, specifically how we limit the right to life so that it excludes the use of another person’s body without their consent.


But aren't you a commie? You don't care about consent and you do think that people should be forced to be the life support for other people against their will. The violinist strategy works better for income redistribution than abortion because excepting cases of rape the mother did consent to the act which produced the child whereas those being forced to surrender their wealth or labour to communism do not.

The violinist analogy is a libertarian analogy which rests on libertarian principles which you reject entirely yet here you are without a shred of self awareness or scruple using it. It is a false analogy as it happens as it has some inconsistencies in it but regardless it is not one you of all people can use because you don't accept the principles underlying it.

For a debunking of the violinist analogy by someone who actually cares about consent can be found here.
#14933675
SolarCross wrote:But aren't you a commie? You don't care about consent and you do think that people should be forced to be the life support for other people against their will. The violinist strategy works better for income redistribution than abortion because excepting cases of rape the mother did consent to the act which produced the child whereas those being forced to surrender their wealth or labour to communism do not.

The violinist analogy is a libertarian analogy which rests on libertarian principles which you reject entirely yet here you are without a shred of self awareness or scruple using it. It is a false analogy as it happens as it has some inconsistencies in it but regardless it is not one you of all people can use because you don't accept the principles underlying it.

For a debunking of the violinist analogy by someone who actually cares about consent can be found here.


Your misunderstanding of my postion is not an argument.

Yes, we all know you have feelings about the big meanie communists. It is okay to be scared.
#14934662
Pants-of-dog wrote:You do you, Davis.


It's Sivad, not Davis.



I think people should respect their sex partners, and if they do not, they should not be having sex with them.


:knife: I think sjw ninnies should spare us the sermonizing.

So you had sex with a woman whom you did not respect.


No I didn't, I only lost respect for her after when she stated her intention to do something extremely irresponsible and unethical.

And somehow I am the immoral one; because I treat others with respect and stand by my actions.


If you think morality is acting out of some misguided sense of manly obligation then you're deeply confused. Morality is doing the right thing, not the idiotic thing.
#14934767
Sivad wrote:It's Sivad, not Davis.



:knife: I think sjw ninnies should spare us the sermonizing.

No I didn't, I only lost respect for her after when she stated her intention to do something extremely irresponsible and unethical.

If you think morality is acting out of some misguided sense of manly obligation then you're deeply confused. Morality is doing the right thing, not the idiotic thing.


None of this is relevant.

Have a good one!
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]