Abortion Double Standard

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 206
#31
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,288
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
I'm not justifying a difference based on location. The differences are multifaceted: the mother has made a commitment to have the child, has gone through with the pregnancy, and is currently raising the child, which includes the financial burdens involved. You talked about how paying child support is a form of enslavement, but that resembles the commitment that a mother makes to their child. The father is being held to the same commitment. You could argue that this is solely an issue of consent and that all that matters is who got to consent to what, but that's reductive. Issues of consent are a subset of the issues involved, not their entirety.

In general, though, the argument you're making seems to be that being compelled to pay is functionally the same as the burdens placed on the mother. I personally wouldn't consider what a mother goes through in order to give birth equivalent to financial payments, but hey, what do I know?
#32
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,270
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Bones
...subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"?.

Of course he can choose, and face the consequences if he chooses not to pay.  This can be figured out ahead of time. Simple.

Society basically has their head in their ass when it comes being smart about birth control and lot of that stem from patriarchal based religious fundamentalism. 

Then you have politicians pandering the religious fundamentalist for their vote. What a crock of BS from their nonsense. End-date-for-humanity 2232 approx.
#33
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
If you can't read my posts then don't ask me stupid questions. Who cares if women are having abortions?
Topic's author
#34
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@whiteflame
The father is being held to the same commitment. 
My primary point is that they are not - whilst the mother can "opt out" of her responsibilities, our society does not allow the father too. My primary contention here is that, if it is the case that the mother is morally permitted to remove herself from the child, so too should a man have the same rights. 
Topic's author
#35
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well the unborn would presumably care if they were given a voice. 
#36
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,270
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Bones
.....so too does the mother have an obligation not to kill her child. 

1} your still confused, ...why? stems from patriarchal fundamentlism on a planet that is suffering from over population for the operating systems we have in place at this time, and your obvious false narrative regarding fetus is a child. It is not.....

...1a} fetus is not a child yet,

...1b}  fetus has not taken its first inspiration of air yet,

...1c} fetus is not born out of life giving womb yet,

....1d} fetus is organism of the mother, and she decides what to do with organsims of her body, until she gives her consent for other advice and actions. All else is actions toward virtual rape of the pregnant woman, 

....1e} so many logical common sense considerations I cant remmeber them all.


#37
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,288
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
But I'm telling you that there are distinctions between them. You can claim they're inconsequential, but so far, your only justification for that conflation is that both include loss of consent, which is true, but also only one small part of the issue. For that matter, you're creating further asymmetry in this relationship. If a mother "opts out" via an abortion, then both functionally opt out. If a father opts out but the mother does not, then the mother is left with all the financial and physical responsibilities. There's a real world cost to those women that, I would argue, outstrips any benefit these men gain from being able to opt out of the cost of child support.
#38
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Nope. 
Topic's author
#39
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@whiteflame
But I'm telling you that there are distinctions between them. You can claim they're inconsequential, but so far, your only justification for that conflation is that both include loss of consent, which is true, but also only one small part of the issue.
My primary contention is that there exists a symmetry in regards to the fact that one's prior choice (to be impregnated or to impregnate) can be suspended. It is not necessarily the loss of content, but rather consistency. 

If a mother "opts out" via an abortion, then both functionally opt out. If a father opts out but the mother does not, then the mother is left with all the financial and physical responsibilities.
There is also the situation in which the mother opts out but the father did not want, which I find to be a huge issue, but that's for another discussion. 

There's a real world cost to those women that, I would argue, outstrips any benefit these men gain from being able to opt out of the cost of child support.
Remember, I'm posing this as an if and contention - that is, if abortion is a choice, then the male also ought to have the right to opt out. I don't actually believe that the father should have the choice to opt out because I believe that when they have sex, they are implicitly accepting the responsibilities of raising and aiding the child. I simply extend this to the mother. 


#40
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
I really don't see the symmetry at all to be honest bones. We have a social contract (decided through voting) that we have financial obligations to one another. Bodily autonomy rights on the other hand are written in the constitution of most nations . If we didn't have bodily autonomy rights, it would literally be legal to rape someone, that's how important bodily autonomy/bodily integrity rights are. Someone's right to their body as their property is not the same as someone's "right" (which doesn't exist) to not getting taxed. If we didn't have a right to our body as our own, rape would be legal, murder would be legal. 
-
Someone's right to their body is much more paramount and important than the right to not have to pay certain forms of tax.  If we didn't have bodily autonomy rights it would be ok to go into any graveyard and organ harvest all the corpses. Even corpses possess bodily autonomy rights to not be violated. If we didnt have bodily integrity/autonomy laws, it would be perfectly constitutional and legal for fuel companies to start putting leaded fuel back into cars. Collectively dropping our IQ points by 20 and there would be nothing you could legally do about it.




#41
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
You're actually going to get Kobe Bryant style dunked on if you do decide to go through with the abortion discussion with me. My ability for evolution is impeccable. 
#42
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
My brain has grown 3 sizes just now omg, i had a cosmic brain moment.
Topic's author
#43
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ehyeh
 If we didn't have bodily autonomy rights, it would literally be legal to rape someone, that's how important bodily autonomy/bodily integrity rights are.
We oughtn't believe that bodily autonomy is incompatible with the pro life position - the entire position is that the life, the bodily autonomy of the unborn ought not be trumped by the liberty of a women. 
#44
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
We oughtn't believe that bodily autonomy is incompatible with the pro life position - the entire position is that the life, the bodily autonomy of the unborn ought not be trumped by the liberty of a women.
I see, that's an understandable perspective to have. If it follows that murder and rape are illegal due to my body being my own property. It therefore follows that the most consistent line to draw personhood (and therefore a right to life) is not at the point of humanhood but when one should be given bodily autonomy rights, this then means the point at which one attains bodily autonomy is not at conception but once one has a body viable independent of another's (how can you have bodily autonomy if you don't have an independent body to begin with and never have?

  Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.
Most foetus's do not possess autonomy of their own (independent of another's bodily autonomy). therefore they do not have bodily autonomy as extension of the first necessary tenant of "autonomy". they then also do not possess any self-ownership as an extension of failing to fulfil tenant one. Most foetus fail to fulfil two key tenants to fulling the necessary requirements for bodily integrity rights.
-
Considering the fact bodily autonomy is to do with your body what you wish. If you're not independently viable you physically cant do with your body what you wish (from another's own bodily autonomy). Your body cannot be said to be yours alone if it is not self sustaining without the leverage/aid of another's bodily autonomy. Your bodily autonomy becomes theirs if you don't have independent viability. This then means (most) foetus's don't have a right to bodily autonomy, therefore they don't necessarily have a human right to life either. What do you think of that, Mr bones?
-
Remember,  bodily autonomy rights only apply when you're reliant on another's body. Therefore arguing for people hooked up on machines or the disabled is a non-sequitur.



#45
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"?
His body is not affected by the fetus; hers is. This misaligns the analogy as she has far more at stake, thus her choice should be weighted more.

It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support? 
Whilst I think your analogy misaligns, I also think what you are suggesting here is desirable because it will slow down the birth-rate of unwanted children. Women will become more cautious with who they sleep with (because they don't want to fall pregnant to a deadbeat dad), and thus single mothers and casual sex will begin to evaporate. Children born into wedlock or other official child-rearing arrangements will become more fashionable.

To synthesize, I think women should have majority control over the birth of children (seeing that they have more at stake), yet men should be empowered to opt-out of paying for unwanted children (especially children whom are not his).
#46
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
#47
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,288
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
Suffice it to say I think this whole exercise is reductive. I’ve said as much already and explained why. You can argue that there’s some overlap and I agree that there is, but I don’t think that’s sufficient. Stripping away the entire context that makes these two decisions distinct to focus solely on consent doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Second degree murder is all murder that is not first degree murder. Generally speaking, second degree murder is a deliberate killing that occurs without planning and does not involve any of the victims or circumstances listed above under first degree murder.

The sentence for second degree murder is life imprisonment with no parole for a least ten years or any such higher number between then and twenty five years, as decided by a judge (different sentencing rules exist for persons under the age of 18 years). [**]

No Canadian woman has gone to jail for longer than a year for this crime since a legal provision for infanticide was enacted in 1948. Instead, convicted mothers usually get no jail time at all, Kramar says. [**]

convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
If it were the case that a man is compelled to pay child support because they have, at a prior date, chosen to impregnate a women, not only is this against the pro choice narrative that "a decision can be suspended at any time", it is the case that this standard ought to be applied to the mother. 
good point
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
that makes these two decisions distinct
hold on

it's literally the same decision

a woman's choice to engage in intercourse

a man's choice to engage in intercourse
#51
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,288
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not what I'm comparing. I acknowledge that what they initially consented to is the same. That does not make any subsequent consent even similar, let alone identical, yet this post largely assumes that to be the case.
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
That's not what I'm comparing. I acknowledge that what they initially consented to is the same. That does not make any subsequent consent even similar, let alone identical, yet this post largely assumes that to be the case.
how is the woman supposed to be able to "opt out" of the "consequences" of their choice

but the man is NOT supposed to be able to "opt out" of the "consequences" of their choice

when it was the same choice ?
#53
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
Infanticide is a crime that requires diminished responsibility. It is a specific crime that recognizes the major mental health impacts of childbirth can have. The scenarios in which it applies are very specific - very limited - and so not apply in every case of a mother killing a child.

Implying that one can simply decide to kill a baby up to twelve months, is absolutely flagrantly untrue false, and frankly obscene. Mothers are still prosecuted for murder, one cannot simply decide to kill your child - that would also be murder - and are prosecuted - and sent to prison for - murder.

You should understand the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, right?
#54
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,288
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, because the nature of opting out for one is very different from the nature of opting out of the other. Both are also choices. Those choices are very distinct and have very distinct consequences. It’s not just one choice.
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
Infanticide is a crime that requires diminished responsibility. It is a specific crime that recognizes the major mental health impacts of childbirth can have. The scenarios in which it applies are very specific - very limited - and so not apply in every case of a mother killing a child.

Implying that one can simply decide to kill a baby up to twelve months, is absolutely flagrantly untrue false, and frankly obscene. Mothers are still prosecuted for murder, one cannot simply decide to kill your child - that would also be murder - and are prosecuted - and sent to prison for - murder.

You should understand the logical fallacy of the undistributed middle, right?
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
convicted mothers usually get no jail time
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Again, because the nature of opting out for one is very different from the nature of opting out of the other
how exactly are they "distinct" and "very different" ?
#57
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Repeating the same nonsense does not make it any more correct.

If you kill your baby, that’s murder.

If you kill your baby, but have grounds for diminished reaponsibility if the birth and resulting health implications impacted your decision making - that’s infanticide.

Mothers go to prison for one, but not the other.


Deciding to kill your baby, would be murder, would be punished as murder, convicted as murder - and you would go to prison. It does not and would not qualify as infanticide legally.

You keep repeatedly conflating murder with infanticide, and portray the lack of jail time for infanticide as if it implies a lack of jail time for murder.

That’s not the case.


I don’t quite understand why you’re still failing to grasp that there is a difference between murder of a child and infanticide, and are continuing to pretend as if they’re the same thing - they’re not, nor ever will be: so please stop pretending that they are.
#58
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,288
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Already explained that. Feel free to respond to any of my previous posts in this thread.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Already explained that. Feel free to respond to any of my previous posts in this thread.
no you have not

you've asserted they are "very different"

and yes, in some very obvious ways the woman gets pregnant and the man does not

but this utterly fails to address the MORALITY

for example

NOT giving money to some chick you had mutually consensual intercourse with

does not seem MORALLY equivalent to "killing a fetus"
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Repeating the same nonsense does not make it any more correct.
it's not "nonsense"

it's fact

and, clearly, any woman who would intentionally murder (or infanticide) their own infant

has some sort of "mental disorder"