My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

[Astrocyte]

Personally, I think the father and the mother should debate the matter and make their decision.
Can't go wrong with that.

You can when each person makes a different decision. Hence this thread.

[Uppercut]

I don't even understand why people think abortion needs to be discussed much. Babies are costly, dumb, and loud. Abortion should be mandatory.

[helltank]

Personally, I think the father and the mother should debate the matter and make their decision.
Can't go wrong with that.

You can when each person makes a different decision. Hence this thread.

That's why I said debate the matter.

[Nepycros]

Personally, I think the father and the mother should debate the matter and make their decision.
Can't go wrong with that.

You can when each person makes a different decision. Hence this thread.

That's why I said debate the matter.

If that was how it worked, Judge Judy would be out of a job. Do you really think they'll ALWAYS debate and reach a conclusion? One of them will ALWAYS yield?

[Kael Hate]

I don't even understand why people think abortion needs to be discussed much. Babies are costly, dumb, and loud. Abortion should be mandatory.

Agreed.

and lets trump that with Sterilisation.

[Neopergoss]

I don't even understand why people think abortion needs to be discussed much. Babies are costly, dumb, and loud. Abortion should be mandatory.

Agreed.

and lets trump that with Sterilisation.

lol Kael. I shudder to think what would be done in the name of humanity (or in your name) if you were supreme overlord of the world.  No one would accuse you of being infirm of purpose, though, that's for sure.

[Kael Hate]

I don't even understand why people think abortion needs to be discussed much. Babies are costly, dumb, and loud. Abortion should be mandatory.

Agreed.

and lets trump that with Sterilisation.

lol Kael. I shudder to think what would be done in the name of humanity (or in your name) if you were supreme overlord of the world.  No one would accuse you of being infirm of purpose, though, that's for sure.

Considering that again knowing I am a Misanthrope.

[doublecross]

So, basically the way I see it is that claiming that the father should have a 100% say completely ignores most of the arguments brought up in other aspects of the abortion debate.

1) Rape.    Should a man who rapes a woman, impregnating her, be able to say that he will not allow her to have an abortion?

2) Health of the mother.             Say a doctor has determined, with enough certainty that it rounds to 100%, that is the woman goes through with the pregnancy, it will kill her.  If the man decides to forbid the abortion, that would be akin to killing her, would it not?    Even if you claim an abortion is murder, I would argue that one cannot choose to kill a mother to save a fetus, even if one considers abortion to be murder.


This is me ignoring the theme of this post and just making the normal pro-abortion argument. I am wondering how you address these two points.

[BluePriest]

So, basically the way I see it is that claiming that the father should have a 100% say completely ignores most of the arguments brought up in other aspects of the abortion debate.

1) Rape.    Should a man who rapes a woman, impregnating her, be able to say that he will not allow her to have an abortion?

2) Health of the mother.             Say a doctor has determined, with enough certainty that it rounds to 100%, that is the woman goes through with the pregnancy, it will kill her.  If the man decides to forbid the abortion, that would be akin to killing her, would it not?    Even if you claim an abortion is murder, I would argue that one cannot choose to kill a mother to save a fetus, even if one considers abortion to be murder.


This is me ignoring the theme of this post and just making the normal pro-abortion argument. I am wondering how you address these two points.

We already covered how rape would be a completely different situation, and although we didnt cover if the mother would die, it would fall into a different catagory as well. I dont want to put a whole bunch of quotes in, so just use the search bar for this topic and the word rape, and you will see that discussion has already been covered. Id also like to point out that both situations you covered are really strawmans as they cover such a small portion of the actual cases.

[doublecross]

Its not a strawman, for at least 2 reasons.

First of all, a strawman is when you make a weak argument for the opposing side, that you then refute, to make your opponent's position seem weaker, which isn't what I did at all.

Secondly, if you claimed something was 100%, and I find a single valid counter-example, that is a valid point for me to make.


Well, what was covered before was what some politicians are calling "forcible rape".

It is fact (that you can verify if you'd like), that some politicians are pushing to make rape exceptions to abortion laws only count "forcible rape", and discount cases where the woman was drugged, unconscious, or manipulated in a non-violent way, such as blackmail.


Would you only consider "forcible rape", to be a special case?

[BluePriest]

Its not a strawman, for at least 2 reasons.

First of all, a strawman is when you make a weak argument for the opposing side, that you then refute, to make your opponent's position seem weaker, which isn't what I did at all.

Secondly, if you claimed something was 100%, and I find a single valid counter-example, that is a valid point for me to make.


Well, what was covered before was what some politicians are calling "forcible rape".

It is fact (that you can verify if you'd like), that some politicians are pushing to make rape exceptions to abortion laws only count "forcible rape", and discount cases where the woman was drugged, unconscious, or manipulated in a non-violent way, such as blackmail.


Would you only consider "forcible rape", to be a special case?

In a word, no. Also, never claimed to be 100%. Earlier I said that there should be exceptions for certain situations. So once again, I dont see why you are bringing it up.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Seems to be exactly what you did. In the first, and the most recent post. Rape was already covered.

[CAMA2]

So, basically the way I see it is that claiming that the father should have a 100% say completely ignores most of the arguments brought up in other aspects of the abortion debate.

1) Rape.    Should a man who rapes a woman, impregnating her, be able to say that he will not allow her to have an abortion?

2) Health of the mother.             Say a doctor has determined, with enough certainty that it rounds to 100%, that is the woman goes through with the pregnancy, it will kill her.  If the man decides to forbid the abortion, that would be akin to killing her, would it not?    Even if you claim an abortion is murder, I would argue that one cannot choose to kill a mother to save a fetus, even if one considers abortion to be murder.


This is me ignoring the theme of this post and just making the normal pro-abortion argument. I am wondering how you address these two points.

The child never committed rape. Why should an innocent child be murdered for the acts of his father? Why does the mother have the right to kill someone just because someone else did something horrible to her? If someone shot me in the leg, does that give me the right to go beat on someone else's head with a club? I think not. Rape is not a viable reason for abortion.

As for the health of the mother, having an abortion to save the mother's life is hardly different than a mother using her child as a shield against a crazy gunman. Would you believe that to be okay? Rahter, an operation should be performed to attempt to relocate the fetus so as to save both mother and child. If the child happens to die during the procedure, at least the full intent was to save it.

To the point of the question, since both parents had an equal hand in the creation of the child, they should both have equal rights to carry it to term or demand such. Courts always rule in the best interests of childern in custody and similar family cases, why not here too? Isn't the best interest of the child in this case to bring it to term? Thus, if either parent desires the child to be brought to term, then they should have the ability to do so. That is simply maintaining judicial consistency as far as I am concerned.

The value of the child is the fact that it is a person; life begins at conception. If you believe it beigns at another point in time, then you are already on a slippery slope for defining life in cases such as comas, sleep, and other such statuses.