Should men be involved in the abortion debate?

[MrWonka]

Should men be involved in the abortion debate? Some people say they should not since men don't get pregnant, so therefore they should not be involved no matter what side they take.

Involved? That's fine, but men must acknowledge the reality that people are naturally quick to pass laws against things that don't impact them. As a man, I can say with confidence that if men could get pregnant there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner. They'd have them inside of Walmart like the optometrist. The Abortion is such an easy and open and shut case for the pro-choice side that heavy personal bias is really the only explanation for nitwits to be against it.

 

[MrWonka]

Good god people! Please do not use the words straw man unless you understand it. I have made no straw man. I asked you a simple question, it was either a yes or no.

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

This is quite obviously not a simple yes or no question. May I refer you to another thread to help you understand the difference between forcing someone to pay for a mistake monetarily versus forcing someone to pay for it with physical harm to their own body...

What can the government force you to do?

If you can't force someone to donate blood against their will to save a life then you certainly cannot force them to remain pregnant for 9 months to save a developing life.

If you can shoot a person for trespassing on your land, then you can definately abort a developing person for trespassing inside your body.

 

[ludin]

Good god people! Please do not use the words straw man unless you understand it. I have made no straw man. I asked you a simple question, it was either a yes or no.

Yes you don't understand it.

here is basically what you did.

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have) unrestricted access to intoxicants." It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants

only in this case.

I simply stated that a man as a choice up until he gets a women pregnant.

you went on to create an argument from something i never said stated or anything else.
So do you agree that once a woman gets pregnant she should not be able to abort the child then?

it has nothing to do remotely with any argument that i said.

hence you are in fact attempting to argue a strawman argument.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

This is quite obviously not a simple yes or no question. May I refer you to another thread to help you understand the difference between forcing someone to pay for a mistake monetarily versus forcing someone to pay for it with physical harm to their own body...

What can the government force you to do?

If you can't force someone to donate blood against their will to save a life then you certainly cannot force them to remain pregnant for 9 months to save a developing life.

If you can shoot a person for trespassing on your land, then you can definately abort a developing person for trespassing inside your body.

It factually is a yes or no. Either answer it dont waste your time writing. I don't read non-answers to valid on topics.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Yes you don't understand it.

here is basically what you did.

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued/misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been something like "(we should have) unrestricted access to intoxicants." It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants

only in this case.

I simply stated that a man as a choice up until he gets a women pregnant.

you went on to create an argument from something i never said stated or anything else.
So do you agree that once a woman gets pregnant she should not be able to abort the child then?

it has nothing to do remotely with any argument that i said.

hence you are in fact attempting to argue a strawman argument.

I made no straw man whatsoever. I asked you a question.. Claim it again you go ignore. I have no time for trolls and people who dont understand what a straw man is. You even originally called it a "strawman"...so spare us.

 

[DebateChallenge]

That analogy doesnt remotely work.

women own guns...men dont get pregnant.

OTOH, I believe it's fine if men express their opinions on abortion.

On the contrary you could say there are some men who get pregnant. Although this is in the vast minority there are people who are born female and then get sex changes and become men. They go through the hormonal procedure to get the sex change but not the surgical procedure so they retain their female parts. They then go on to get pregnant. So depending on how you want to look at it you could say there are some men who do get pregnant.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What minority of men get pregnant?

See post #31

Should women be involved in debates on the military?

Should women be involved in debates on NASA?

Should women be involved in debates on off-shore oil drilling?

I don't see how those questions relate to the topic at hand but I don't have a problem with women being involved in those debates, although such debates do not have anywhere near the passion and controversy of the debates of gun control or abortion.

 

[DebateChallenge]

They dont match up at all. Millions of women own guns. No men get pregnant.

Millions? That might be a bit much even when you take the Obama administration into account where you saw a huge increase in women gun owners, but you can also say men get pregnant, see post #31.

 

[MrWonka]

It factually is a yes or no.

That doesn't mean it isn't loaded.

For example, this is also technically a yes or no question...

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

 

[Lursa]

On the contrary you could say there are some men who get pregnant. Although this is in the vast minority there are people who are born female and then get sex changes and become men. They go through the hormonal procedure to get the sex change but not the surgical procedure so they retain their female parts. They then go on to get pregnant. So depending on how you want to look at it you could say there are some men who do get pregnant.

'
Yes, I have written here in the subforum about such.

They are still corner cases and for my response, it doesnt matter...I said men should be involved in the debate.

However I wanted to point out how poorly formulated your attempted analogies were...if someone doesnt agree that men should be involved, this info really has no bearing on it. It's in the realm of medical extremes today.

 

[Lursa]

See post #31


I don't see how those questions relate to the topic at hand but I don't have a problem with women being involved in those debates, although such debates do not have anywhere near the passion and controversy of the debates of gun control or abortion.

:doh You are not very ept at creating or understanding analogies. In all those cases, since you tried to justify women having opinions on gun control since they were the 'minority,' I offered you some additional examples that showed how yours failed. Or maybe it doesnt. If your position is that women should not be involved in gun control debates because they are a minority...then you'd agree with the other analogies I provided and that would be fine as your opinion.

 

[Lursa]

Millions? That might be a bit much even when you take the Obama administration into account where you saw a huge increase in women gun owners, but you can also say men get pregnant, see post #31.

It's not. About 25% of women own guns and there are 300 million guns in the US.

 

[AlphaOmega]

That doesn't mean it isn't loaded.

For example, this is also technically a yes or no question...

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Beating her at what?

 

[DebateChallenge]

It's not. About 25% of women own guns and there are 300 million guns in the US.

Alright than whether or not women should be involved in the gun debate, perhaps we should make an exception and say that the 25% of women that do own guns can be involved. So women can get involved in the gun debate only if they themselves own guns. Same thing with men who get pregnant as I pointed out in my previous post.

Anyway, some of the content in this thread would be better discussed in the gun control folder. I will start a thread there and post the link in this thread.

 

[Lursa]

Alright than whether or not women should be involved in the gun debate, perhaps we should make an exception and say that the 25% of women that do own guns can be involved. So women can get involved in the gun debate only if they themselves own guns. Same thing with men who get pregnant as I pointed out in my previous post.

Anyway, some of the content in this thread would be better discussed in the gun control folder. I will start a thread there and post the link in this thread.

So then you just redefined AND answered your own OP :doh

Let's face it, your intended distinction was: since men cant have abortions, should men be allowed to debate that issue. Any % of a gender that can, then changes your OP.

Now you're ok with 'some %%' for your "analogies" in order to try and prove your own point (or justify your poor analogies, I'm not sure which).

 

[Angel]

There's no need to strut our egos in pointless or off-topic vanity posts after this fellow wrapped it up for us at #4:

Well, it depends. Should non-disabled people have any say as to what laws are passed regarding handicapped accessibility for public accommodations and businesses? Should people who are not minorities have any say about passing anti-discrimination laws? Should non-billionaires and non-millionaires be involved in discussing how taxes are to be apportioned against the highest income earners?

I will stop with the rhetorical questions. Yes, everyone who has access to the franchise (i.e., can who can legally vote for representatives and on legislation) should be involved in discussions of public policy, even ones in which they may not be directly affected.