• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do males have an abortion opinion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ARealConservative said:
If abortion is made illegal in a state, courts don't say "gestate". They say "don't kill".

In both cases though, an obligation is being made.
Click to expand...

We have all sorts of obligations. I see no problem with us having obligations. I do have a problem with a person being forced to endure a medical condition they want no part of.
 
jallman said:
We have all sorts of obligations. I see no problem with us having obligations. I do have a problem with a person being forced to endure a medical condition they want no part of.
Click to expand...

I have a problem allowing mob rule for some obligations, then deny others based on a nebulous moral argument. :mrgreen:
 
ARealConservative said:
I have a problem allowing mob rule for some obligations, then deny others based on a nebulous moral argument. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I can understand that. Point out which is which for me for, as you know, I can be a little slow sometimes.
 
jallman said:
I can understand that. Point out which is which for me for, as you know, I can be a little slow sometimes.
Click to expand...

I would argue that all moral arguments are nebulous, which is why federalism is critical to offset the inevitable divide.

So back to my original statement, I find it funny that liberals use the gem about a person owning their bodies as the defense for abortion, ignoring how it invalidates pretty much the rest of their platform.
 
Ethereal said:
No, it is a scientific fact. A "zygote" or a "fetus" is the same organism as an "infant" or an "adult"; these terms merely provide a developmental distinction, NOT a taxonomic one.
Click to expand...

No this is not a scientific fact. A "zygote" or a "fetus" at that stage has not developed the proper and full characteristics as what, scientifically speaking, defines us as human. Therefore you are wrong and you need to come to the realization that a fetus developes into a child, and is not a child nor can be considered a human at that stage but an organism which is the basis of human life.
 
OKgrannie said:
What do you think you're solving by stating they shouldn't be having sex? People who shouldn't frequently DO have sex. People who are too young, married to others, not married, financially insolvent, etc., continue to have sex anyway, and likely always will regardless of how many times they are told not to do it.
Click to expand...
I'm not solving anything, merely stating the obvious. If one lays down to have sex one had better be willing to accept the possiblity of pregnancy and parenthood that comes with it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The so-called "father" (he isn't a father until the child is born) does not have rights to the child until it is born. He also has no obligations until the child is born. What do you think he is going to do, gestate for half of the pregnancy?

Embryo transfer has not been done with humans, except those involving in vitro fertilization. A woman would not know she is pregnant soon enough to do the transfer, as there is a very narrow window of opportunity. Embryo transfer has been done with valuable animals.
Click to expand...

As I stated, I'm not a doctor//OB/GYN. So, maybe I was off the mark on this topic and instead of referring to embrionic transfer what I should have said was in vitro fertilization as you mentioned above. Regardless, I think people can extrapolate for themselves the point I was trying to make: there is an alternative (aside from the obvious) for a man to become a father w/o "forcing" a particular woman to go through a pregnancy against her will. (The "obvious" being don't have sex with this chick; instead do that one over there. :mrgreen: )

This has come up in the courts before, and the rulings always have been that the "father" cannot force his wishes upon a woman.
Click to expand...

I don't think I stated anything to the contrary. If I did, I apologize.

Good for you!
Click to expand...

I try to teach my young'in's right despite what the world view may be. :mrgreen: Thank you.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
No this is not a scientific fact. A "zygote" or a "fetus" at that stage has not developed the proper and full characteristics as what, scientifically speaking, defines us as human.
Click to expand...

If it's not a human, then what it is? A pig?

Therefore you are wrong and you need to come to the realization that a fetus develops into a child, and is not a child nor can be considered a human at that stage but an organism which is the basis of human life.
Click to expand...

The word "fetus" does not denote a taxonomic (do you know what that word means?) distinction, it denotes a developmental distinction between humans. You are the same species now as you were in utero. From the moment of fertilization you were a biologically distinct human organism, that did not all of sudden change because you slid out of a birth canal.
 
Ethereal said:
If it's not a human, then what it is? A pig?
Click to expand...

Umm, no. A fetus. :roll:


The word "fetus" does not denote a taxonomic (do you know what that word means?) distinction, it denotes a developmental distinction between humans. You are the same species now as you were in utero. From the moment of fertilization you were a biologically distinct human organism, that did not all of sudden change because you slid out of a birth canal.
Click to expand...

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
 
kaya'08 said:
Umm, no. A fetus. :roll:

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
Click to expand...

I hate to wade into these "a fetus is a human" vs "a fetus isn't a human debates" because nothing is ever resolved. But I have ask, according the bolded section int he quote above, wouldn't that disqualify simamese twins from being considered human? Might want to rethink that line.
 
kaya'08 said:
only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.
Click to expand...

the beauty is she does not have to do anything extraordinary to provide that nurture.

Eat until she is full. Drink until she is no longer thirsty. She will be doing more of both obviously.
 
kaya'08 said:
Umm, no. A fetus. :roll:
Click to expand...

A fetus is a fetus!? You don't say! So, this "fetus", what species is it?

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.
Click to expand...

None of this is relevant to an organism's species designation. A "fetus" (a stage of development in a human organism) possess a complete human genome and is alive, thus it is a human organism.
 
Ethereal said:
None of this is relevant to an organism's species designation. A "fetus" (a stage of development in a human organism) possess a complete human genome and is alive, thus it is a human organism.
Click to expand...

Sure, unless you want to define what a human is in scientific terms. Then your wrong. And, im sure i remember debating with you before, but are you religious? That would explain your inherent inability to acknowledge facts. :)

EDIT: Please, enlighten me. What is your view on rape victims? I await an amusing reply indeed. This should sum you and your argument up completely.
 
Last edited:
Psychoclown said:
I hate to wade into these "a fetus is a human" vs "a fetus isn't a human debates" because nothing is ever resolved.
Click to expand...

Nothing gets resolved because certain people have a distinct lack of biological expertise. I asked Kaya, if a fetus is not a human then what is it? To which he replied, "A fetus. :roll:" How can any progress be had when such brazen ignorance is so commonplace in these discussions.
 
Ethereal said:
Nothing gets resolved because certain people have a distinct lack of biological expertise. I asked Kaya, if a fetus is not a human then what is it? To which he replied, "A fetus. :roll:" How can any progress be had when such brazen ignorance is so commonplace in these discussions.
Click to expand...

Ignorance? Ill ignore that, coming from you. You can define a fetus in many different ways:

"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal"

I myself consider it just an animal at that stage.
 
kaya'08 said:
Ignorance? Ill ignore that, coming from you. You can define a fetus in many different ways:

"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal"

I myself consider it just an animal at that stage.
Click to expand...

and I consider this a form of intellectual dishonesty because to be honest, you would have to acknowledge the merits of your oppositions point.
 
kaya'08 said:
Sure, unless you want to define what a human is in scientific terms.
Click to expand...

A human is a living organism which possesses a diploidic human genome.

Then your wrong. And, im sure i remember debating with you before, but are you religious?
Click to expand...

How is this relevant?

That would explain your inherent inability to acknowledge facts. :)
Click to expand...

Your bigotry and over-reliance on ad hominem has been duly noted. By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: What species is the fetus?
 
ARealConservative said:
I am also an atheist. I don't need to believe in a creator to see the illogical attitude that rights come from government.
Click to expand...

Again, at the risk of digressing further, could you elaborate where these "inalienable rights" come from then please? I can wait - off soon but can check again in the morning for an answer.

ARealConservative said:
Do slaves not have a right to their own individual liberty simply because government didn't grant it to them? Did women not have a right to property without government recognition of that right?
Click to expand...

If you'll forgive me I will stick to the current subject of the inalienable right to life you posted.
 
ARealConservative said:
the real contradictory position is when liberals decree that it must be legal because it is "her body".
Click to expand...

I'm going to jump ahead of myself and ask a second question - are there guidelines in the US constitution / Declaration of Independence which tell us what limits there are on a woman once she is pregnant? I'm asking because I'm curious about the "pro-life" argument about bodily sovereignty.

jallman said:
-- The deadbeat dad doesn't have to work to fulfill his financial obligation; he must simply fulfill the obligation. How he does it is up to him.

In the case of forcing a woman to gestate if she does not wish to do so, there is really no other way around the fact that she is being forced to give up her bodily resources.
Click to expand...

Forgive me Jallman, I think I already covered ARealConservatives argument when Scarecrow akbar asked it previously - he asked why a man's "nutrients" should not be denied if a woman was allowed to.
As you point out later - a man can pay off a check but more seriously, a man can give up work and thus deny payment or support and the child will still survive. A woman cannot deny "nutrients" as she gestates as this would kill the baby more surely than a man's lack of financial support.

His argument doesn't hold water. OK, taxi's here.
 
kaya'08 said:
Ignorance? Ill ignore that, coming from you. You can define a fetus in many different ways:

"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal"
Click to expand...

You're using the term "fetus" as if it were a species designation. The word "fetus" is a generalized term used to describe a specific stage of development within a given organism; it is not a taxonomic designation.

I myself consider it just an animal at that stage.
Click to expand...

This statement is a further testament to your ignorance of biology. The term "animal" simply refers to an organism whose taxonomic classification falls under the kingdom Animalia. All humans are animals.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Again, at the risk of digressing further, could you elaborate where these "inalienable rights" come from then please? I can wait - off soon but can check again in the morning for an answer.
Click to expand...

This really is digressing because it is far more of a theological debate

I enjoy the subject though, so I will share my feelings.

natural rights come from evolution. It is something ingrained in our species over time because of its ability to sustain life though voluntary association and a desire to protect the species.

It is a theological discussion because I don't seek proof of these rights. I simply have faith in them and find them easy to defend and follow.

If you'll forgive me I will stick to the current subject of the inalienable right to life you posted.
Click to expand...

I'm simply giving an example of how the rights exist even when man wasn't evolved enough to fully recognize them
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Ignorance? Ill ignore that, coming from you. You can define a fetus in many different ways:

"an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal"

I myself consider it just an animal at that stage.
Click to expand...

A fetus is a human. A human being. But that doesn't help pro-lifers argument. We "kill" people on life support and execute human beings all the time. Simply having human DNA is irrelevant.

If I didn't have human DNA and was somehow born in a test tube would it be OK to kill me? Would I have no rights? Many will ignore this thought experiment and label it as "ridiculous" instead of having the epiphany that perhaps:
1) having a specific type of DNA
2) being a certain species
3) possessing life

aren't the important factors in determining rights, even though to our best knowledge all such things that we grant life have such characteristics. Its just easier for many to grasp the simple concepts (E.G., life, conception) then to understand the complex ones such as rights.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I'm going to jump ahead of myself and ask a second question - are there guidelines in the US constitution / Declaration of Independence which tell us what limits there are on a woman once she is pregnant? I'm asking because I'm curious about the "pro-life" argument about bodily sovereignty.
Click to expand...

This should not be a federal issue. First, The DoI is not a legally binding document. It is a fine ideal to uphold, and was a great way to piss off the king eloquently but nothing more. We as a people would need to evolve quite a bid to agree to be bound to such lofty goals.

Secondly, and more importantly, The constitution was not designed to deal with such complex matters and it is a mistake to do so now that we are even larger. We have enough issues to worry about in regards to national security, economic policy, global competition, corruption, and transparency.

I will not commit the mistake of others and reconstruct the constitution to find a power to enforce pro-life mentality.


Forgive me Jallman, I think I already covered ARealConservatives argument when Scarecrow akbar asked it previously - he asked why a man's "nutrients" should not be denied if a woman was allowed to.
As you point out later - a man can pay off a check but more seriously, a man can give up work and thus deny payment or support and the child will still survive. A woman cannot deny "nutrients" as she gestates as this would kill the baby more surely than a man's lack of financial support.

His argument doesn't hold water. OK, taxi's here.
Click to expand...

you lost me
 
jallman said:
I find it very telling that you worked so hard to illicit that reaction from him only to gloat over having a post to report. It's why I don't debate with you anymore, Jerry.
Click to expand...

Did you notice that only the forst quote box in that post was of something I said, while all the other quote boxes were from someone else's posts?

If I rendered kaya'08 incapable of using even his own comp corectly, then I'm better than I thought;)
 
jallman said:
I can understand that. Point out which is which for me for, as you know, I can be a little slow sometimes.
Click to expand...

Inferno, you might want to ask, in adition to the OP, 'why do gay males have an opinion on abortion'.

I mean, a hetero man could say "well my wife this...my child that..." but gay men will never be in that position.

Personaly I think all citizens have a say, but if I were of the opinion that mabey men shouldn't have a say, I would also reason that gay men have even less of a say than hetero men.

Just a thought :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Inferno, you might want to ask, in adition to the OP, 'why to gay males have an opinion on abortion.

I mean, a hetero man could say "well my wife this...my child that...' but gay men will never be in that position.

Personaly I think all citizens have a say, but if I were of the opinion that mabey men shouldn't have a say, I would also reason that gasy men have even less of a say than hetero men.

Just a thought :2wave:
Click to expand...

Well, I agree. Why should gay men have a say?

But then again, this is America, and they have the right to have an opinion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom