Abortion

[jgib]

I imagine this can be a hot topic with many thoughts and feelings attached to it.

 

A discussion I had yesterday lead to me saying something that was unpopular it seems.

 

If it takes a man and a woman for conception to happen why is it the sole decision of the woman the fate of the result? Should the man not have equal say? If the woman makes the choice to follow through with the pregnancy with out the agreed consent of the man, why does the baby become his responsibility for the next 20 odd years? There is the choice of adoption as well if abortion does not sit well with the woman.

 

If she makes the sole decision to keep, should it not be her sole responsibility to raise?

 

I suppose you can see how this would have been a little unpopular to some.....

 

This led to the question for me, what if the man was the one that wished to keep and raise the child?

[Will Torbald]

If it takes a man and a woman for conception to happen why is it the sole decision of the woman the fate of the result?

 

-It takes an aggressive intrusion on her body to abort the pregnancy. If someone else can decide for you what they do with your body, wouldn't that be a violation of self ownership?

[labmath2]

Forcing the man to be respondible for the child should also be a violation of the NAP based on that standard.

[MrCapitalism]

I imagine this can be a hot topic with many thoughts and feelings attached to it.

That's because I live in a world in which the making and enforcing of laws is socialized.

 

Laws for, or against abortion, may provide a benefit to society, and their enforcement involves a certain 'social cost.' People freak out about this stuff because they only see the benefit, which they cannot quantify, and are blind to the cost of providing that benefit.

 

My personal opinion is that this stuff is a complete non-issue in a private law society.

[SamuelS]

At a time when the availability of a multitude of birth control methods is near universally available it seems absurd to me that all possible scenarios can't just be agreed to ahead of time, in writing, and legally enforced (a la Cherry 2000.) Its really only the enforcement that can't be done and that's because the state won't allow it. Enforcement doesn't have to mean forcing a woman to have (or not have) an abortion if she's reconsiderred either, but it would kick off a series of pre-arranged contingencies such as the assumption of liability.

 

This is already done with contracts in nearly every other area of life, why not this one? It upsets women, for one, and we can't have that, oh no. And the state likes the status quo, it works quite well for them.

[McBeer]

I see abortion as being directly related to the idea of peaceful parenting.

 

If you view a child as your property then you may do with it as you wish. Spanking. Threats. Abortion.

 

If a child is human being then the NAP applies. No hitting, no threatening, no abortion.

 

Is a child transforms from property to human, then what is it specifically that is different?

Is it consciousness, thought, rationality, or some other distinguishing characteristic that makes a fetus become a person?

Peter Singer argued that a baby is not a person until it is self-aware, so abortions should be allowed well after birth.

 

 

I know this isn't an argument, but whenever somebody talks about abortion I imagine a mother with her newborn baby, then the mother grabbing a hammer and smashing in the skull of the baby. If this is really what she wants then she should do it herself.

 

I never bother discussing abortion with people, because the conversation never goes anywhere.

The conversation is in a loop where the arguments never change, but people just keep shouting them louder and louder.

[McBeer]

Sorry for getting off topic on that previous post. The original post was about the rights of the father, not abortion as a whole.

I have had that exact conversation a few times, probably with the same results.

 

If a fetus is the sole property of the mother, then she has no claim to child support from the father.

If a fetus is joint property between the mother and father, then the mother cannot abort without consent of the father.

 

This is an obvious contradiction, but for most people contradictions are irrelevant.

If you point out the contradiction and all you get is rationalizations and justifications, walk away.

You cannot have a rational conversation with somebody who refuses to think.

[jgib]

Sorry for getting off topic on that previous post. The original post was about the rights of the father, not abortion as a whole.

.

No worries....I believe it was a poor topic heading choice on my part.