• 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!

Hospital admitting privileges not required to perform abortions

HonestJoe said:
I thought you meant as like some kind of licence or under a specific regulatory and legislative regime, not unlike medical licences or what you thought applied to sperm donation clinics.
Click to expand...
I am not a doctor. I don't know about all that. Consider how planned parenthood is a subject of controversy in a legal setting. Sperm donorship is also subject to controversy in a similar setting. For some reason we debate female choice more frequently than male choice.

HonestJoe said:
The rules under question aren't about whether a doctor is required, it's about whether a doctor with admitting privileges somewhere (anywhere!) is required. The clinical knowledge, skills and qualifications required to safely and effectively perform abortions (which would differ depending on type of abortion) is a valid concern. The underlying point here is that whether a doctor has admitting privileges or not has zero impact on any of that.

Again, having some regulatory and legislative dedicated specifically to it. As far as I'm aware, anyone in the US could open a private sperm donation clinic in the same way they'd start up any other business. There are no specific qualifications or licensing required.
Click to expand...
I understand the controversy (or lack thereof) surrounding admitting privileges. You do not need to explain it to me. A hospital is an institution just like a sperm donation clinic is an institution. As I understand your post, you are not suggesting that women should be required to go to a hospital to perform an abortion with a doctor, but they can go to a clinic. Can they also have an abortion with a doctor outside a clinic? I am not suggesting that this be the norm, I am asking that you form an opinion on the liberties that men and women should generally have.

HonestJoe said:
I'm not asserting any conclusion. We can't discuss the practical and legal questions of what should happen in any given circumstances until we've agreed of the underlying facts. I think the distinction between being pregnant and being a prospective parent is vital in making such an assessment.
Click to expand...
Ok. I disagree with you. There is no difference, outside of medicine. Men and women should be treated the same regardless of their biological qualities. Pregnant woman should receive medical care in proportion to their condition, just as anybody who expects medical treatment should receive treatment in proportion to their condition. We don't give radiation therapy to people with influenza and we don't want to give a multivitamin to someone with cancer. Moreover, we should not give women or the state the right to control men's lives just because they are pregnant. That is a huge jump to make. It ignores a serious ethical concern, specifically the liberty of men.

HonestJoe said:
[Quote abridged due to post limits]
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought it was blatantly obvious that forcing a man to be someone's sugar daddy was forced surrogacy. Now, it's not forcing the man to be a surrogate for birth, but in a different capacity. Generally speaking, he is still a surrogate for some financial need. I am aware of voluntary surrogacy and I think that both men and women should be at liberty to be surrogates or donors of genetic material. Gender should not be used to determine whether or not a free American has the right to act voluntarily and autonomously in such a way.

HonestJoe said:
Abortion isn’t about just “not becoming a parent”. You can’t present it in such simple terms, which is a major reason why it’s such a long-running and difficult topic in the first place.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Abortion is an autonomous and voluntary decision to becoming a parent. If I'm not mistaken, it is the logical compliment to all of parentage, if one includes miscarriage in abortion. If not, then perhaps miscarriage is a third category and abortion and parentage exhaust all other scenarios.

HonestJoe said:
If you’re so determined to reach a conclusion though, what is yours? What legal and social measures do you suggest to ensure that men and women face exactly the same practical and legal requirements if they want to “not be a parent” in any potential circumstances? My only point here is that is impossible. Until you acknowledge it is impossible, that there will always be some different between the position of men and women and there is no “perfect” answer, you’re not even in a position to start think about any “least worst” solutions.
Click to expand...
Thank you for asking. In short, the answer is that both men and women should be at liberty to abort, i.e. cease a process that leads to parentage.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I'm operating under the assumption that low child mortality rates are a goal. Mothers are weird that way.
Click to expand...

It would seem if low child mortality rates was a desired goal then they would NOT preform abortions .
 
Socrates1 said:
It would seem if low child mortality rates was a desired goal then they would NOT preform abortions .
Click to expand...

Very good point. Perhaps this rule of thumb also applies to men who abort their parental status.
 
Celebrity said:
Recently, many bills concerning a woman's right to choose have been struck down around the country. In Oklahoma, one such bill required hospital admitting privileges to perform an abortion. This is not a new concept. Women who are treated in hospitals are likely to receive good medical care. The question is, is it necessary for a doctor to perform an abortion? I think the answer is no. People expect Planned Parenthood clinics to stay open to women seeking abortions.
admitting_privileges.png

(Source: Admitting privileges: The new abortion battle, explained - Vox)

I have argued in another thread that abortion is the opposite of becoming a parent. Therefore, for men to not become parents, they may perform a similar type of 'financial abortion' which ceases a process leading to parentage. We can argue about the semantics all day. The most common argument comes down to forcing a single person (typically a man) to fork over money because it's 'just a matter of responsibility.' I disagree, and I think that argument is logically flawed.

However, I want to raise another question: if the medical abortion of a ZEF does not require a certain type of healthcare professional, then why does the donation of sperm require a clinic? At this point, some of you might be thinking that a similar law requiring women to perform abortions at a clinic might be where I'm headed. I don't know that that's required, either. What common factor exists among the institutions where men and women seek to not become parents? This is a difficult concept for some people on this forum to understand, however I believe that both men and women should be equally recognized as voluntary parents according to law.

If a woman does not need a doctor to perform an abortion, then why does a man need a doctor to perform a sperm donation?

For all you greedy trial lawyers out there, why do men or women need someone who has joined the bar association to waive their parental rights for them in a court of law? I'm aware that abuses of this type of trial could take place, but abuses are taking place now, while men are forced to become parents by the state. In some cases, judges or magistrates take it upon themselves to publicly humiliate these people, very much unlike the private humiliation some pregnant women may experience when they are shown pictures of aborted fetuses.
Click to expand...

The argument is bull****. It's a loophole, workaround Roe v Wade. Texas has created such a law. It's contrary to Planned Parenthood v Casey decision, which says that the State can't impose "undue burdens" with the intent to undermine Roe v Wade.

Admitting privileges to a nearby hospital is complete nonsense. Texas legislators have refused to produce evidence that women who have abortions in a clinic are at greater physical risk by having an abortion performed by a doctor who doesn't have privileges at a nearby hospital.

In fact two legislators have come forward and admitted the law wasn't about protecting the health of women but to reduce the number of abortions.
 
Celebrity said:
I understand the controversy (or lack thereof) surrounding admitting privileges. You do not need to explain it to me. A hospital is an institution just like a sperm donation clinic is an institution. As I understand your post, you are not suggesting that women should be required to go to a hospital to perform an abortion with a doctor, but they can go to a clinic. Can they also have an abortion with a doctor outside a clinic? I am not suggesting that this be the norm, I am asking that you form an opinion on the liberties that men and women should generally have.
Click to expand...
The environments in which abortions are carried out should be determined entirely on the basis of patient safety and clinical effectiveness. There is a wide range of types of abortion, each of which will have very different clinical requirements. These questions have nothing to do with the "liberties that men and women have", they're entirely clinical. Any moral and legal questions regarding abortion should be concluded long before any of these clinical specifics are determined.

Celebrity said:
Ok. I disagree with you. There is no difference, outside of medicine.
Click to expand...
That is agreeing with me.

Celebrity said:
Sorry, I thought it was blatantly obvious that forcing a man to be someone's sugar daddy was forced surrogacy.
Click to expand...
You're misusing words here. Surrogacy has a specific meaning in the context of pregnancy. Using it to make a different point will only lead to confusion.

Celebrity said:
Wrong. Abortion is an autonomous and voluntary decision to becoming a parent.
Click to expand...
Abortion is not just that. It is also a medical or clinical procedure and a very significant one in many cases. You can't simply dismiss that aspect.

Celebrity said:
Thank you for asking. In short, the answer is that both men and women should be at liberty to abort, i.e. cease a process that leads to parentage.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that is practically possible. Exactly what practical and legal options are you proposing be made available to both men and women? How do you address situations where one parent wishes to absolve themselves of their responsibilities but the other doesn't? How late in the pregnancy would their options continue? If it were really as easy as you wish to imagine, why do you think it's been impossible to resolve anywhere for so long?
 
Celebrity said:
Maybe I was mistaken in my comparison. I believe admitting privileges are a legally recognized qualification of a doctor in the same way that sperm donor clinics are legally recognized entities.

I know that sometimes people make their own arrangements, but that does not necessarily guarantee legal protection. Haven't you heard of one such man from Kansas, who was required to pay support? I suppose this is getting a little bit off topic, but I treat it as common knowledge at this point that men do not enjoy the same freedoms or legal protections as women.

The fact is, women do not risk going to jail for doing something with their own bodies. Men do. Whether or not the personal action occurs before or after sexual intercourse should not be a factor in the context of abortion. Women and men are not recognized in society in the same capacity when it comes to the personal decision to abort, not as a medical procedure, but a social or legal one. I realize that this is a foreign concept to many people, because of their conservative beliefs. However, convenience is no defense of oppression of men.
Click to expand...
I knew we would get around to real issue sooner or later. Give it break, make a baby pay for it, don't want to pay then don't make babies.
 
Celebrity said:
Recently, many bills concerning a woman's right to choose have been struck down around the country. In Oklahoma, one such bill required hospital admitting privileges to perform an abortion. This is not a new concept. Women who are treated in hospitals are likely to receive good medical care. The question is, is it necessary for a doctor to perform an abortion? I think the answer is no. People expect Planned Parenthood clinics to stay open to women seeking abortions.
admitting_privileges.png

(Source: Admitting privileges: The new abortion battle, explained - Vox)

I have argued in another thread that abortion is the opposite of becoming a parent. Therefore, for men to not become parents, they may perform a similar type of 'financial abortion' which ceases a process leading to parentage. We can argue about the semantics all day. The most common argument comes down to forcing a single person (typically a man) to fork over money because it's 'just a matter of responsibility.' I disagree, and I think that argument is logically flawed.

However, I want to raise another question: if the medical abortion of a ZEF does not require a certain type of healthcare professional, then why does the donation of sperm require a clinic? At this point, some of you might be thinking that a similar law requiring women to perform abortions at a clinic might be where I'm headed. I don't know that that's required, either. What common factor exists among the institutions where men and women seek to not become parents? This is a difficult concept for some people on this forum to understand, however I believe that both men and women should be equally recognized as voluntary parents according to law.

If a woman does not need a doctor to perform an abortion, then why does a man need a doctor to perform a sperm donation?

For all you greedy trial lawyers out there, why do men or women need someone who has joined the bar association to waive their parental rights for them in a court of law? I'm aware that abuses of this type of trial could take place, but abuses are taking place now, while men are forced to become parents by the state. In some cases, judges or magistrates take it upon themselves to publicly humiliate these people, very much unlike the private humiliation some pregnant women may experience when they are shown pictures of aborted fetuses.
Click to expand...

Like many other bills this one is retarded and just a dishonest ploy. Regulations for abortions are already set up by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . .the medical community. That process is also overseen by government regulations already. The false claim about "women's safety" doesn't fool one honest, educated and objective person. It is easily defeated with one question. Why do these bills focus just on abortion facilities and not other facilities that do the same type of procedures or worse when it comes to risk and safety? hmmmmmm why are those conveniently left out? LMAO ooooooops
 
[QaaqrrrrrUOTE=Henrin;1066671453]Who told you that giving birth requires a hospital? :lol:[/QUOTE]

Makes sense to me. I think you really should consider answering the question, saving yourself from embarrassment, and try to make us look bad. Go on, answer the question.
 
Removable Mind said:
Correctomundo!

Yes, women can spend jail time for not paying child support.

And woman can go to jail for causing the death of their fetus because of the use of illegal drugs. Using illegal drug is committing a crime and under the Unborn Victims Act, that's a no-no.
I'm sure there's other things women can go to jail for when self-inflicting things to their bodies that Celebrity hasn't considered as well. I'm just not gonna do the research.
Click to expand...

Don't think I am being a smart-arse, I'm not. I do not understand why causing the death of a foetus (which is not a person according to pro-abortionists/choice advocates) through any means, is illegal. Why? If the foetus is not a person, has no legal standing, and can be exterminated legally, then why does a mother not have the right to kill the foetus with drugs? It makes no sense. Is it because the drugs are illegal, and that's the part that is against the law, not the death of the foetus, because the death of a foetus can't be illegal if it is the mother's choice to take drugs when she is pregnant. Her body, her choice, right? Is it illegal because an abortionist is deprived of money? Seriously, why can a mother not choose the means of killing the foetus, if that's her choice? I am sure someone can explain it to me, because I am at a loss as to why the woman's choice is illegal.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Don't think I am being a smart-arse, I'm not. I do not understand why causing the death of a foetus (which is not a person according to pro-abortionists/choice advocates) through any means, is illegal. Why? If the foetus is not a person, has no legal standing, and can be exterminated legally, then why does a mother not have the right to kill the foetus with drugs? It makes no sense. Is it because the drugs are illegal, and that's the part that is against the law, not the death of the foetus, because the death of a foetus can't be illegal if it is the mother's choice to take drugs when she is pregnant. Her body, her choice, right? Is it illegal because an abortionist is deprived of money? Seriously, why can a mother not choose the means of killing the foetus, if that's her choice? I am sure someone can explain it to me, because I am at a loss as to why the woman's choice is illegal.
Click to expand...

It's just the inconsistency of your countries laws. Nothing more nothing less.
 
Casper said:
I knew we would get around to real issue sooner or later. Give it break, make a baby pay for it, don't want to pay then don't make babies.
Click to expand...

Men don't make babies. That is why the sperm donor in Kansas is required to provide support just as any other non-custodial parent is, regardless of whether or not they had sex. Support obligors need not 'make a baby.' A court can establish the existence of similar DNA in a child and father in order to show a biological relationship, but this biological relationship does not imply any other type of relationship. After all, women are biologically related to their aborted fetuses as long as the aborted fetuses can still provide a DNA sample.

The debate is about whether or not women choose to abort, because only women have that choice. Men do not have that choice, and men do not make babies.

Until we grant men the same choice that women have, the choice to autonomously become a father in the same way that a woman becomes a mother, men will be treated as an oppressed class in society.

The social dysfunction which weighs more heavily on the conscience is the one which permits the enslavement of one class to another class in a nominally "free" and "just" society. If men are forced to become fathers, then women should be forced to become mothers.

Banning medical abortions from medical professionals without admitting privileges would not equitable anyway. Safe haven adoption would still play a role in whether or not men and women become parents. In order for men and women to be on equal reproductive ground, we would have to give the government the power to choose whether or not women gave birth or put their newborn children up for adoption.

These are choices that men cannot make, because men do not have equal rights.

GEIxBattleRifle said:
It's just the inconsistency of your countries laws. Nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...

How is this an inconsistency? It is simply not.

An illegal drug is an illegal drug. It shouldn't matter if a pregnant woman illegally purchases an endangered species of caiman to abort her fetus.

The entitled attitude of women surrounding the issue of abortion is really something to behold. Being pregnant does not give one the license to do whatever one wants.

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
HonestJoe said:
The environments in which abortions are carried out should be determined entirely on the basis of patient safety and clinical effectiveness. There is a wide range of types of abortion, each of which will have very different clinical requirements. These questions have nothing to do with the "liberties that men and women have", they're entirely clinical. Any moral and legal questions regarding abortion should be concluded long before any of these clinical specifics are determined.
Click to expand...
Absolutely preposterous to ignore whether or not men and women should be given equal treatment in society simply to benefit women. That is discrimination plain and simple. If you want to talk about medicine and live in ignorance of ethics, the health care forum is thataway -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/.

HonestJoe said:
That is agreeing with me.
Click to expand...
If you think that I agree with you, then you are mistaken. Agreeing that women should have adequate medical care does not mean that I agree to enslave men via discriminatory legal code.

HonestJoe said:
You're misusing words here. Surrogacy has a specific meaning in the context of pregnancy. Using it to make a different point will only lead to confusion.
Click to expand...
Now I see why you are confused. Allow me to explain, this is not the pregnancy forum, it is the abortion forum. Here is the definition of surrogate for your convenience:

noun
1.
a person appointed to act for another; deputy.
2.
(in some states) a judicial officer having jurisdiction over the probate of wills, the administration of estates, etc.
3.
the deputy of an ecclesiastical judge, especially of a bishop or a bishop's chancellor.
4.
a substitute.
5.
a surrogate mother.
Click to expand...
Surrogate | Define Surrogate at Dictionary.com

While there exists a particular meaning for women in the context of motherhood, like the meaning of 'abort,' this is not the only meaning. I am not here to only discuss the merits of getting an abortion in a clinic as opposed to an alley. It is quite clear which one is the better choice for women. For men, an alley is the only option if they do not want to become a parent.

HonestJoe said:
Abortion is not just that. It is also a medical or clinical procedure and a very significant one in many cases. You can't simply dismiss that aspect.
Click to expand...
Wrong, abortion is just that. HonestJoe, I am not dismissing the medical aspect at all. I am taking into account several different aspects encompassed under parentage in a binary sense. You are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying in order to ignore the point I am making.

HonestJoe said:
I don't see how that is practically possible. Exactly what practical and legal options are you proposing be made available to both men and women? How do you address situations where one parent wishes to absolve themselves of their responsibilities but the other doesn't? How late in the pregnancy would their options continue? If it were really as easy as you wish to imagine, why do you think it's been impossible to resolve anywhere for so long?
Click to expand...

Well that is quite a loaded question. Do you think it was impossible for Lincoln to free the slaves?
 
Celebrity said:
Absolutely preposterous to ignore whether or not men and women should be given equal treatment in society simply to benefit women.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring the questions of equal gender rights, I'm just saying that the apparent answers to those questions implied by your posts are flawed.

Celebrity said:
If you think that I agree with you, then you are mistaken. Agreeing that women should have adequate medical care does not mean that I agree to enslave men via discriminatory legal code.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreeing that women should have adequate medical care doesn't mean I agree to "enslave men via discriminatory legal code" either. :)

Celebrity said:
Now I see why you are confused. Allow me to explain, this is not the pregnancy forum, it is the abortion forum. Here is the definition of surrogate for your convenience:
Click to expand...
Oh please! The forum is about the abortion of pregnancy and I was perfectly clear what I meant when I referred to surrogate pregnancy as a circumstance where abortion could be relevant and where the legal and social principles we're discussing would need to apply.

Celebrity said:
Wrong, abortion is just that. HonestJoe, I am not dismissing the medical aspect at all.
Click to expand...
Those two statements are contradictory. You can't say abortion is just about not becoming a parent when you immediately acknowledge that it also has medical aspects. Abortion is complicated.

Celebrity said:
Well that is quite a loaded question.
Click to expand...
It was a deliberately loaded question. That is the real question here and it is hugely loaded. I don't believe there is a perfect answer. We can't establish equality between pregnant mothers and the biological fathers but their circumstances are fundamentally unequal. The prospect of "becoming a parent" is entirely different for the person actually carrying the foetus and due to give birth so the prospect of "choosing not to become a parent" can't be made the same. No amount of legalisation is going to change that.

You can certainly seek to create better (or least worse) circumstances and options for all the people who end up in the position where these questions are relevant. To do that though, you need to acknowledge and understand all of the wide and varied elements that can possibly be involved.
 
Celebrity said:
Men don't make babies. That is why the sperm donor in Kansas is required to provide support just as any other non-custodial parent is, regardless of whether or not they had sex. Support obligors need not 'make a baby.' A court can establish the existence of similar DNA in a child and father in order to show a biological relationship, but this biological relationship does not imply any other type of relationship. After all, women are biologically related to their aborted fetuses as long as the aborted fetuses can still provide a DNA sample.

The debate is about whether or not women choose to abort, because only women have that choice. Men do not have that choice, and men do not make babies.

Until we grant men the same choice that women have, the choice to autonomously become a father in the same way that a woman becomes a mother, men will be treated as an oppressed class in society.

The social dysfunction which weighs more heavily on the conscience is the one which permits the enslavement of one class to another class in a nominally "free" and "just" society. If men are forced to become fathers, then women should be forced to become mothers.

Banning medical abortions from medical professionals without admitting privileges would not equitable anyway. Safe haven adoption would still play a role in whether or not men and women become parents. In order for men and women to be on equal reproductive ground, we would have to give the government the power to choose whether or not women gave birth or put their newborn children up for adoption.

These are choices that men cannot make, because men do not have equal rights.



How is this an inconsistency? It is simply not.

An illegal drug is an illegal drug. It shouldn't matter if a pregnant woman illegally purchases an endangered species of caiman to abort her fetus.

The entitled attitude of women surrounding the issue of abortion is really something to behold. Being pregnant does not give one the license to do whatever one wants.
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is admitting privileges not being necessary to perform abortions?
 
Scrabaholic said:
What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is admitting privileges not being necessary to perform abortions?
Click to expand...

If you continue to willfully ignore the first post in the thread, it is not hard to see why you continue to fail to understand the comparison that is being made between requiring some level of bureaucracy in autonomous reproduction via status in society and via status in a hospital.

Why is it that men cannot autonomously become parents? Forced fatherhood persists despite claims from women marching on Washington that they deserve "equality in society." How can women be equal to men if only women and not men can choose to become parents voluntarily?

It's a simple ****ing comparison. Men have to go to court to arrange their non-custodial role. This is a bureaucratic measure intended to punish men who do not perform the duties of a father as society sees fit.

You may think that requiring admitting privileges of a doctor who performs an abortion is subversive of Roe v Wade. Once again, may I remind you that this forum is not a court of law, and that the merits of an argument are measured by its cogency? Admitting privileges are as much an element of bureaucracy as non-custody is.

Now tell me, what is so complicated about that?

What more need I explain so that you understand that doing something wrong by men is not doing something right by women, regardless of whether or not it is medical in nature?
 
HonestJoe said:
I'm not ignoring the questions of equal gender rights, I'm just saying that the apparent answers to those questions implied by your posts are flawed.
Click to expand...
You have yet to provide a legitimate rebuttal to my answers. Until you do so, I will assign the same merit to your loaded questions as I do to your meritless accusations.

HonestJoe said:
Yes, agreeing that women should have adequate medical care doesn't mean I agree to "enslave men via discriminatory legal code" either. :)
Click to expand...

I think it's quite odd that you find slavery amusing. It seems you have conveniently permitted forced fatherhood in order to justify (in your mind) adequate medical care. This makes zero sense. In your post #47, you claim that you are "not asserting any conclusion."

HonestJoe said:
I'm not asserting any conclusion. We can't discuss the practical and legal questions of what should happen in any given circumstances until we've agreed of the underlying facts. I think the distinction between being pregnant and being a prospective parent is vital in making such an assessment.
Click to expand...

But in the very same post, you conclude that abortion is not the opposite of becoming a parent. And you conclude it by assertion without reason, accepting it as fact. I do not accept your conclusion as fact, where the nature of parentage is concerned.

HonestJoe said:
Abortion isn’t about just “not becoming a parent”. You can’t present it in such simple terms, which is a major reason why it’s such a long-running and difficult topic in the first place.
Click to expand...

HonestJoe said:
Oh please! The forum is about the abortion of pregnancy and I was perfectly clear what I meant when I referred to surrogate pregnancy as a circumstance where abortion could be relevant and where the legal and social principles we're discussing would need to apply.
Click to expand...

Really? Well I referred to the abortion of parental rights as an abortion. This is a legitimate application of the meaning of the word 'abort.' May I remind of the forum in which you are posting? This is Abortion:

Forum: Abortion
Discussion and Debate about abortion, partial birth abortion along with paternal and maternal rights.

HonestJoe said:
Those two statements are contradictory. You can't say abortion is just about not becoming a parent when you immediately acknowledge that it also has medical aspects. Abortion is complicated.
Click to expand...

I can and I do say that abortion is about not becoming a parent in the same way that I say that life is existence, not because I physically breathe in and out but because I am not dead.

By the way, I am not on dialysis. If I was, then my existence would be medical, wouldn't it? However it is not necessary to specify some type of kidney function in order for me to determine whether or not I exist.

I am not a doctor. I am aware that some abortions are performed in a medical environment. The existence of one particular aspect of concepts such as surrogate pregnancy, or medicinal abortion does not define the general concepts of surrogacy and abortion respectively. That is why your narrow mind only permits you to see this as a one way street, only preserving the reproductive autonomy of women, and throwing men under the bus.

HonestJoe said:
You can certainly seek to create better (or least worse) circumstances and options for all the people who end up in the position where these questions are relevant. To do that though, you need to acknowledge and understand all of the wide and varied elements that can possibly be involved.
Click to expand...

I do not need to acknowledge and understand all of the varieties of abortion to realize that abortion is the opposite of becoming a parent, even though I have in this very thread done just that.
 
Celebrity said:
It seems you have conveniently permitted forced fatherhood in order to justify (in your mind) adequate medical care.
Click to expand...
I'm not "permitting" anything. Remember this is a thread based on a specific law regarding doctors performing abortions requiring admitting privileges. My position on the remains that law provides zero benefits to anyone (and has the potential to be harmful).

You're pushing a very different aspect of the wider issue here. On the difficult legal questions of parenthood I'm not reaching any conclusion, not least because I can't see a "good" answer. When discussing elements relating to that question though, I make no apology for pointing out where I feel you're not giving sufficient consideration to the health and well-being of pregnant women (and the foetus for that matter).

Celebrity said:
But in the very same post, you conclude that abortion is not the opposite of becoming a parent.
Click to expand...
Again, I only said that abortion isn't just not becoming a parent. I does involve that of course but there are a lot of other practical, medical, psychological and legal elements which need to be considered here and taken in to account by any proposed changes. I don't think you're giving those other aspects sufficient consideration.

Celebrity said:
I do not need to acknowledge and understand all of the varieties of abortion to realize that abortion is the opposite of becoming a parent, even though I have in this very thread done just that.
Click to expand...
But if that's the only element you're willing to acknowledge, how could you reach any kind of conclusion that would automatically apply in all of those various circumstances? That's like making your house secure by just making sure one of the windows is locked. You clearly feel that there should be some kind of change in how fathers are treated legally, though you've still not explained specifically what that would be. I'm not convinced there is a way to improve the situation - it is often unfair and difficult but I can't think of any change that won't just shift or increase that injustice and difficultly. I'd be more than happy to hear practical answers to that issue but you can't avoid assessing them in the full context of the issues if they're going to be taken seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom