Does being male mean I can't have opinions about abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

I used that example to make a very similar point. robo37 used the light example to prove the existence of consciousness, my answer to that would be basically what you said, it's different to block light with one's hand out of reflex, than out of understanding, and I highly doubt that a 15 week fetus uses the later. It's a reflex. I mentioned the computer to prove that point further.

Also, if a brain can't interpret auditive information, how is it capable of thought? There is the encephalogram thing too.



That only means that if a 21 week fetus is born and taken proper care of, it can survive outside the womb and grow into a healthy adult. Which is an option that definitely should be pursued instead of abortion. The origin of consciousness is a gradual process, and that's why I mentioned earlier the slippery slope. I could say that 24+ weeks is the point where abortion would be unacceptable for me, but that doesn't mean that 23 weeks is cool, why not wait one more week? Or two? or three? Our four? And here we go For practical matters, eight weeks should be plenty of time for a woman to find out about her pregnancy and decide to do something about it one way or the other. But it IS her body after all.

There is clearly more to this than some automatic responce.

- At first when the baby sees light it thinks "Ah, I don't like this." (the next part wouldn't make sense if this wasn't true)
- Then the baby thinks "Wait a minute, if I move these parts of my body over here the light isn't so bright anymore. This is much better."
- When the light stops the baby responds "Okay, the it has stoppe now, so I quess I don't have to keep them here any more." and relaxes it's arms.

Even if you are correct and the baby's brain is somehow able to calculate how much each muscle has to move by, and in which direction corresponding to whichever direction the light comes from, that sounds like one complicated calculation for a supposedly undeveloped brain to carry out by itself...

Last edited by robo37 on 13 Nov 2012, 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Because it's a fairly complex movement doesn't make it less of a reflex. Even in newborns, a large part of their behaviour comes from automatic reflexes rather than conscious decisions. Stroke a newborn over his/her nose or upper lip and his/her mouth will open wide. Touch the top of the mouth (on the inside) and the newborn will start sucking. Both reflexes that are pre-programmed in the same way you would program a machine. They're very useful reflexes, as they both facilitate feeding, but they're still reflexes. Stroke the handpalm of a newborn with a finger and he/she will close the hand and try to grab your finger. Again, a reflex. There are several other reflexes of different kinds in newborns and they all go away with time as the conscious decision making takes over from automatic reflexes.

And that's all for newborns who are far more developed than, say, a 16 week old fetus. While newborns already start showing some personality through the vast amount of reflex-driven behaviour, in the fetal stage it's all reflex still. All early movement in the uterus is an involuntary reflex. There's no evidence for voluntary movements in embryos or fetuses.

Sure you can have opinions. They are free to everyone. The decision at last depends on the one pregnant. But you can have opinions as much as you want.

Just because i am a woman, it doesnt mean i have no opinion up to mustache either.

Wrong.




@Jitro: The answer to your question is YES.

well then please give us a complete overview of the factors and emotions a woman would go through during her pregnancy,

hell not even among individuals can you give such certainty about others.

Are woman the only party to a pregnancy? You cannot disregard the father or the unborn child who is voiceless.

Sorry but its not about understanding (I think its no problem to understand a pregnancy) or about disregarding someone. It just biology.

So you can fully respect the regards of the father, but what does it help? So if a woman does not want to keep the child, but the father wishes to keep it ---> Ok, so your operating the child out of the womans belly softly, so it isn't hurt and then? What shall the father do with a 6 weeks fetus? Do you think it will live without a connection to a plazenta, because the father is so much regarding for that and the women is respecting that? Ok, so you dont kill the child during the abortion, but it will die instantly afterwards after the operation in his fathers hand.

Not a great difference in my opinion.

If your opinion is that government should make women unable to choose what to do. Then yeah.

I think the "Why" is obvious. As a man, you do not experience the risk that you will end up pregnant tomorrow and have to decide between 9 months of discomfort, aches, puking, risk of losing your job and even risk of death. So, in fact, your position is privileged in this debate as you won't experience any negative outcome in case that you get to convince your government to force women to get pregnant. So, yeah, that's it.

Mostly yeah. The father is an interested party. The mother is a committed party. When making bacon and eggs, the father is the chicken and the mother is the pork.

Actually, I can.

This is the thing. We cannot give half the decision power to a person and half to another. We cannot have half a pregnancy. So, one of the parents will necessarily have to receive 100% decision right. I think it is logical that the person that will have to go with the 9 months of puking and the risk of death should be the one who gets the decision power.

If as a man, you don't like it. Well, don't make women pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant. It is not so difficult...

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 13 Nov 2012, 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

To be honest I am tired sick of woman using there emotions as excuses. I've been through severe depression and I've never thought about using that as an excuse for anything let alone to kill, the whole woman's rights movement is starting to give women the impression woman can do as they please which is a disgusting bevavour just as it would be if a man did it. The whole "woman's body, woman's choice" argument implies that she can also overdose on harmful drugs and cause severe harm to the babies future life because it's her choice. This is a terrible attitude. So where are we now going to draw the line at "well the mother cannot harm the badies formation but killing is fine"?

And for the record rape victums should still have to keep in line with the law, no "I was raped so I can do whatever I please", I was bullied whilst not considered as serious as rape that doesn't mean I get a "well it's okay that you can do a few bad things but let's not go too overboard okay". Most peadofiles have been sexually abused themselves so let's let them off as well. Can't have their emotional trauma getting anyworse can we.

And now people think I have something against rape victums because I'm not defending every single action they can take... no. Everything that can be done to make their lives better without effecting anyone else's life should be taken. All I'm saying is that the fact that they have been raped does not does not mean that they can do whatever they please just because putting laws in the way might make her emotions worse. If they choose to be selfish it's there own doing, whether that be bullying people, stealing, threatening, or killing. The fact that there are people who can do this for these people for money just goes to show what a unjust, corrupt world we live in.

And that's just talking about rape victims, believe me I have heaps of respect towards them compared to the people who have abortions just because they refuse to bother looking after a child, those people genuinely make me feel sick.

What's strange about the times we live in is that society seems just as sexist towards men as it is towards woman, which effectively makes is acceptable for either sex to give or recieve abuse depending on the subject matter. *sigh*

We use "I am hungry so I want a Chicken sandwich" as an excuse to kill. But that's not even the most trivial excuse. We also use: "Meh, that fly is annoying me" as an excuse to kill.

NOBODY CARES ABOUT LIFE IN OUR CULTURE. So, really. Who cares if something is being killed or not? What we do care about is about the killing of people. There are many reasons why we do care about the killing of people:
#1 The negative effects a person's death would cause on other people. Talking about emotional and economical effects.
#2 To make sure that people that have killed other people will not do it again. Because we would like to stop number #1.

In regards to abortion. The thing that is being killed is not even a person (and we can be certain it isn't until very late during pregnancy). And even when it is late, we have to consider that this is the such of death that does not apply with our logic to make murder a crime. All in all. I think the best way to deal with this is to encourage abortions to be done as soon as possible. This ensures that what is killed is far from being a person.

With their body, yeah.

Yeah, you are right. The rape exception is ridiculous.

Women (and all people for that matter) should ALWAYS be able to do whatever they please with THEIR OWN BODIES. Regardless of whether or not there was rape.
--
Ladies and gentlemen, today is false equivalence day! Brace yourselves.

No, not at all. Not by a far shot. Not even fantasize about making such a comparison ever again in your life.


Define bad thing. Abortion is not a bad thing, because it is a decision made by the woman, that affects her own body. Which is *shocker* her property.


Ridiculous false equivalence. Pedophiles get jailed because of doing things to other people's (children) bodies without consent (as children can't give consent legally). Abortion on the other hand is something that happens in the woman's own body.

Yeah, well zygotes and fetuses can't experience emotional trauma.

You can't really expect me to answer this question. It has a pretty obvious answer...



Ever moved your hands above your eyes so the sun doesn't shine on them? You would have probably first done that after 16 weeks in your mother's womb. And to doesn't just "happen on it's own" when you've done it as a kid, obviously it wouldn't have done it before.



So you're all for woman overdosing while pregnant and ending up with a seriously deformed and unhealthy child, then?



Right then, so bring on all the dead and horribly deformed babies. It's was the mothers choice so who cares about them. And for the one's who actually care about their sons and daughters, why not issue them all with guns so they can protect them. If they choose to shoot people they're doing it with their body so who cares if people start dying horrible violent deaths.

Sounds like a great society to live in don't you think?

That issue has already been addressed, better than I would have been able to by myself.






That does give me some cognitive dissonance though, apparently from my point of view aborting a fetus early would be preferable than taking substances that would interfere with it's development, and then carrying it to term; and if a woman did the second I'd find that quite reprehensible, while not so much with the first. It might as well be true, even if it doesn't look like it at first sight, but I'd appreciate points of view on this matter, especially from other pro-choice people.

I've spoke of this in a couple other threads but I find it an interesting concept. A man cannot make a woman keep a child and he can also cannot force a woman to get an abortion but is financially for the child until age 18. If society(as it does in the US) demands personality responsibility from the man then it shouldn't be much of stretch to demand the same for women. If they don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

There is no different law for females oder males. NONE OF US, male, female, straight, homo, black, white, born, unborn, ... HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER ONES BODY AGAINST HIS WILL, so please stop telling yourself lies.

Even if life is depending upon it, NOONE of us is allowed to anything regarding to another ones body. If i have leucemia and my brother would have the right blood type to make a bone marrow donation so i can live, and he says no: Then i have to accept that. I can cry, i can scream, i can do whatever i wan, i have to accept his decision upon his body. If i need someones kidney to survive i can only hope, that he is willing to give it to me. But if he doesn´t there is no way i can force him. So why the hell are you telling lies, that poor men are not allowed to make use of another ones body, but women would be? No woman is allowed to use your body against your will, even if she will be dying if you refuse,, and equal to that you are also not allowed to make use of another ones body.

You can choose that you want your child to be alive. But when it isn't able to live without another person body support, then it has the same rights, as we all have. We have no right to force another one to help us. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. What comes next? Offensive that everyone has to provide everyone with his organs, blood cells, or whatever needed? Or else he goes to jail because of commiting murder when not offering his body to other people who´s life depends on it? Even with liver and bone marrow, which can be rebuild by the own body, i do not believe that there would be a great support for that law. Or has the life of a 30 year old sick person, needing a liver transplantation to live on, less worth or should have less rights than that of a 6 week old fetus?

Where are all the men running around screaming "We must fight this law, that allows people to murder by not helping! Offering your liver must be forced by law to everyone to save lifes!" Never seen some of them, so as long as they could be involved, men seem to have no more interest in inventing such laws as women have. ^^

Have a nice day, by the side: I am volunteer for organ transplantation. Are you? Or are you murdering other people depending on your body, even when you cannot have any impacts by that any longer?

Saying that a baby still relies on reflexes after it's been born doesn't downplay an unborn's ability to make decisions on it's own, adults still have reflexs such as blinking and if you place your finger on your palm you can feel your finger muscles retract a little. But blocking the sun with your own body parts is much more complex than simple muscle retractments, it requires judgement and the ability to learn. When the sun shines in your eyes you don't just automatically raise up into position by itself, does it? You still have to work out for yourself how to block it out. Your brain is an adult brain an there isn't a single relax action known that is anywhere near as complicated as riaing a hand. In fact reflex action by definition are caused by looped nerve signals, which are unable to make judgement by itself. You need consciousness to have any sense of judgement. Fact.






So then you agree that the "a woman who can do anything she wants with her body" rule is nonsense?