Should men get equal say in abortion?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by EC
This organism cannot survive outside the mother's body, it's in the early stages of development before being born, it cannot be compared to women who go through menopause, it's irrelevant. The embryo can't meet the demands of the environment, it cannot survive in it.
Yeah she has unprotected sex let's say and if she decides to give birth she suffers the consequences, doesn't she? So why shouldn't the men also take responsibility for their actions?
Yeah she has unprotected sex let's say and if she decides to give birth she suffers the consequences, doesn't she? So why shouldn't the men also take responsibility for their actions?
It can meet the demands of its environment and it survives in it.
Does a woman have to face the consequences for getting pregnant? Do they have a way out? Why should a woman be the only one with the option to escape the responsibility?
You are arguing a woman should be able to punish a man for her decision, I know it may benefit you in the future but does it not make you question your beliefs.
Original post by cherryred90s
Oh so you're pro choice if it saves the mothers life?
Do you have a right to control what changes your body goes through? Yes
Do you have a right to control what changes your body goes through? Yes
Your whole argument involves ending a life to make a woman's life easier
It would make my life easier if I kill you, do I have a right to do it?
Original post by joecphillips
No as saving your life doesn't violate the nap principle, ending a life to make yours easier does.
It doesn't even have to come down to nap, the question is do you have a right to save your life when it is in serious danger? Yes do you have a right to end a life to make yours easier? No
How many pregnancies result in the death of the mother?
It doesn't even have to come down to nap, the question is do you have a right to save your life when it is in serious danger? Yes do you have a right to end a life to make yours easier? No
How many pregnancies result in the death of the mother?
Doesn't knowingly and intentionally bringing a child into an environment in which it would be harmed violate NAP?
Original post by h3rmit
Doesn't knowingly and intentionally bringing a child into an environment in which it would be harmed violate NAP?
So your argument is killing a child doesn't violate nap but letting it live does?
What do you mean it will be harmed?
Original post by joecphillips
Your whole argument involves ending a life to make a woman's life easier
It would make my life easier if I kill you, do I have a right to do it?
It would make my life easier if I kill you, do I have a right to do it?
How would killing me make your life easier? Am I growing inside of you? Am I comprising your health? Am I potentially causing irreversible changes in your body?
If I'm bothering you that much, you can ignore me.
Can a pregnant woman ignore the potential life growing inside her?
Original post by cherryred90s
How would killing me make your life easier? Am I growing inside of you? Am I comprising your health? Am I potentially causing irreversible changes in your body?
If I'm bothering you that much, you can ignore me.
Can a pregnant woman ignore the potential life growing inside her?
If I'm bothering you that much, you can ignore me.
Can a pregnant woman ignore the potential life growing inside her?
I wouldn't be having this discussion which would make my life slightly easier.
You are arguing a woman can kill them, is Killing acceptable if it will make your life easier?
Original post by joecphillips
So your argument is killing a child doesn't violate nap but letting it live does?
What do you mean it will be harmed?
What do you mean it will be harmed?
There are degrees to which one can violate NAP, and it seems minimally minimising it is best.
Let's say you have an extreme hypothetical scenario where the child will be brought up to be a prostitute for ISIS soldiers, or would be born with debilitating diseases, for example.
Original post by joecphillips
I wouldn't be having this discussion which would make my life slightly easier.
You are arguing a woman can kill them, is Killing acceptable if it will make your life easier?
You are arguing a woman can kill them, is Killing acceptable if it will make your life easier?
I am arguing that abortion should be the woman's choice as she is the one affected and will be the one to endure painful contractions, childbirth and everything else that comes with pregnancy. Nobody should be forced to go through such pain against their will.
Yes if the man is currently involved in the womans life in a consensual relationship.
if the pregnancy was concieved out of rape, incest or other non consensual activity then no I don't think that's grounds for an equal say.
I would like it if, in a stable relationship, the two parties can agree and/or compromise, it's the woman's choice of course, but if the woman aborts a pregnancy without consulting her partner/spouse and getting their viewpoint first it could lead to unnecessary tensions. A good relationship stems from good communication.
if the pregnancy was concieved out of rape, incest or other non consensual activity then no I don't think that's grounds for an equal say.
I would like it if, in a stable relationship, the two parties can agree and/or compromise, it's the woman's choice of course, but if the woman aborts a pregnancy without consulting her partner/spouse and getting their viewpoint first it could lead to unnecessary tensions. A good relationship stems from good communication.
Original post by h3rmit
There are degrees to which one can violate NAP, and it seems minimally minimising it is best.
Let's say you have an extreme hypothetical scenario where the child will be brought up to be a prostitute for ISIS soldiers, or would be born with debilitating diseases, for example.
Let's say you have an extreme hypothetical scenario where the child will be brought up to be a prostitute for ISIS soldiers, or would be born with debilitating diseases, for example.
So do you think people who have a debilitating disease should also have their life ended if their mother says ok?
Just because someone doesn't seem to have a good chance in life it does not mean they do not deserve the chance at life.
Should we abort all children in Africa they don't have good life chances and will likely end up in terrible circumstances?
Original post by cherryred90s
I am arguing that abortion should be the woman's choice as she is the one affected and will be the one to endure painful contractions, childbirth and everything else that comes with pregnancy. Nobody should be forced to go through such pain against their will.
You are arguing that a woman should be able to kill to get out of becoming a mother.
The funny thing is one argument that has been used against men so often in this thread can be used here: if they do not wish to be faced with the decision over abortion to be taken out of their hands, don't have sex. If you do, then you must also accept the responsibility for the consequences of unwanted pregnancy
Why is it that you apply your arguments one way or do you think that a man is in no way effected by a child?
Original post by joecphillips
So do you think people who have a debilitating disease should also have their life ended if their mother says ok?
I think an abortion would be a good idea in that case as it would eliminate some avoidable suffering. Also, if you compare two potential lives, one with a debilitating disease, one without, and you realise the one with the debilitating disease, is that not violating NAP, relatively?
Just because someone doesn't seem to have a good chance in life it does not mean they do not deserve the chance at life.
Why do people deserve the chance at life? If you could have killed baby Hitler, would you have?
If you're intentionally and knowingly giving someone a poor chance at life, that's causing unnecessary suffering and is hence immoral. It's also fiscally irresponsible.
Should we abort all children in Africa they don't have good life chances and will likely end up in terrible circumstances?
We should definitely advocate and fund heavier use of contraceptives (and potentially abortions), as low birth rates allow for higher quality of lives.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by h3rmit
I think an abortion would be a good idea in that case as it would eliminate some avoidable suffering. Also, if you compare two potential lives, one with a debilitating disease, one without, and you realise the one with the debilitating disease to exist, is that not violating NAP, relatively?
Why do people deserve the chance at life? If you could have killed baby Hitler, would you have?
If you're intentionally and knowingly giving someone a poor chance at life, that's causing unnecessary suffering and is hence immoral. It's also fiscally irresponsible.
We should definitely advocate and fund heavier use of contraceptives (and potentially abortions), as low birth rates allow for higher quality of lives.
Why do people deserve the chance at life? If you could have killed baby Hitler, would you have?
If you're intentionally and knowingly giving someone a poor chance at life, that's causing unnecessary suffering and is hence immoral. It's also fiscally irresponsible.
We should definitely advocate and fund heavier use of contraceptives (and potentially abortions), as low birth rates allow for higher quality of lives.
So are you saying that allowing people to live violates nap? This isn't a case of comparing 2 lives this is a discussion about ending one without consent
Original post by joecphillips
So are you saying that allowing people to live violates nap? This isn't a case of comparing 2 lives this is a discussion about ending one without consent
Realising a worse potential life intentionally and knowingly violates NAP.
They are both potential lives, and embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not in a position to comprehend words, let alone consent. They will not be negatively affected by termination anyway.
Original post by h3rmit
I think an abortion would be a good idea in that case as it would eliminate some avoidable suffering. Also, if you compare two potential lives, one with a debilitating disease, one without, and you realise the one with the debilitating disease to exist, is that not violating NAP, relatively?
Why do people deserve the chance at life? If you could have killed baby Hitler, would you have?
If you're intentionally and knowingly giving someone a poor chance at life, that's causing unnecessary suffering and is hence immoral. It's also fiscally irresponsible.
We should definitely advocate and fund heavier use of contraceptives (and potentially abortions), as low birth rates allow for higher quality of lives.
Why do people deserve the chance at life? If you could have killed baby Hitler, would you have?
If you're intentionally and knowingly giving someone a poor chance at life, that's causing unnecessary suffering and is hence immoral. It's also fiscally irresponsible.
We should definitely advocate and fund heavier use of contraceptives (and potentially abortions), as low birth rates allow for higher quality of lives.
I agree with everything above. If it is going to cause unnecessary suffering for the child, why do it? yes, morally speaking it would be nice to give everyone a chance in the ideal world, but this isn't the ideal world, this isn't fantasy land, when you have more kids dying before they even reach adulthood being the norm in places like the poorest areas of africa, you have to wonder if it would be better to bring in abortions so those that are alive have a chance.
you also have to remember in the poorest parts of africa, giving birth also poses a significant risk to the mother's life too, infection, exhaustion, lack of nutrition. factor in that this mother now has two mouths to feed, not just one, and she could barely feed one, and you potentially have a young child growing up without a mother where its crucial they have one, that can cause unnecessary suffering and often death.
on what planet is dying of starvation and illness over months if not years is somehow better than being terminated in a relatively quick procedure?
it is always better to prevent than to terminate, but sometimes termination is a necessity for the greater good.
The man shouldn't have any need to pay for the baby or take care of it if he wishes for the baby to be aborted but the woman does not. Since women get the choice, men should as well, or not have to be responsible for it.
Original post by h3rmit
Realising a worse potential life intentionally and knowingly violates NAP.
They are both potential lives, and embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not in a position to comprehend words, let alone consent. They will not be negatively affected by termination anyway.
They are both potential lives, and embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not in a position to comprehend words, let alone consent. They will not be negatively affected by termination anyway.
Except it isn't a case of a healthy person v a unhealthy person you are saying killing a unhealthy person doesn't violate nap
The woman should have full responsibility including all financial costs when raising the child if they decide not to abort. Since it's her body.
The man should get no say and shouldn't be liable to pay child support.
The man should get no say and shouldn't be liable to pay child support.
Original post by joecphillips
You are arguing that a woman should be able to kill to get out of becoming a mother.
The funny thing is one argument that has been used against men so often in this thread can be used here: if they do not wish to be faced with the decision over abortion to be taken out of their hands, don't have sex. If you do, then you must also accept the responsibility for the consequences of unwanted pregnancy
Why is it that you apply your arguments one way or do you think that a man is in no way effected by a child?
The funny thing is one argument that has been used against men so often in this thread can be used here: if they do not wish to be faced with the decision over abortion to be taken out of their hands, don't have sex. If you do, then you must also accept the responsibility for the consequences of unwanted pregnancy
Why is it that you apply your arguments one way or do you think that a man is in no way effected by a child?
Tbh, I've very clearly explained what I am arguing for and you're choosing to twist it. Nobody should be forced against their will to endure arguably the worst pain that a woman will ever feel.
Women do have to face the consequences of unwanted pregnancy. Either stay pregnant or have an abortion, neither of which are particularly pleasant especially if the pregnant was accidental.
I do agree though that you should protect yourself or avoid sex if you don't want to be a parent. I don't believe that abortion should be used as a contraceptive by any means.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
