Abortions.

[VINYLONE]

To elaborate. The woman has sole control over the birth or abortion of the child. The man has no right to demand an abortion, if he feels he cannot care for the child or does not want to provide support, and he cannot demand that the child is born, if he wishes to have custody or help raise the child. The man has no rights in this regard at all, and his involvement is solely at the discretion of the mother. He can be forced to provide child support for a child he did not want, and he can have his parental rights taken away with no recourse if she chooses to abort.

This is absolutely correct but to say that a man has NO input is inaccurate.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is absolutely correct but to say that a man has NO input is inaccurate.

From a purely semantic standpoint this is correct. The man can cry, beg, cajole, ask, plead, threaten, bribe, or make any other number of attempts to influence the decision. In this way he has input. But in practicality the man has no say in the matter, and in the end he is forced to accept the decision of the mother regardless of his "input".

Obviously the issue is that this is entirely one-sided and does not take into consideration the fact that it took 2 to create the baby, yet only 1 is allowed to make any decisions regarding that child. A decision that will nonetheless affect both of the parties involved in conception. That in fact the male is stripped of all rights, and/or forced to take on responsibilities he may not have chosen for himself if he had truly had legitimate input into the decision.

 

[VINYLONE]

@ Log: Can't argue with that....

 

[♪alt13]

Flawed because I don't fall in line with your opinion of something neither of us can prove?

Unconscious and not self aware are two dramatically different things. Too, is a person that's already placed their conscious mark on the world when compared to an infant, who has not.

That's not to say the infant doesn't have value.. but a pet has value too. And in many cases, just as much value as a grown person.

I didn't challenge you on whether or not infants were self aware. I think you should reexamine your assertion that not being self aware(alone) removes the moral barrier to killing an infant. The fact that you have back pedaled that statement tells me that you know it is wrong.(It's morally ok but we shouldn't do it) If it isn't wrong, why not solve the problem of unwanted children by killing babies? Why not save our society the money it will take to educate them?

Your baseline for worth(self awareness) is absolutist and arbitrary. I could set the line at another measure say 75 IQ points and then claim you were attacking my beliefs when you told me it wasn't morally ok to kill the mentally handicapped. It would be no different then the sophistry you're trying to pull.

 

[Harambe]

I didn't challenge you on whether or not infants were self aware. I think you should reexamine your assertion that not being self aware(alone) removes the moral barrier to killing an infant. The fact that you have back pedaled that statement tells me that you know it is wrong.(It's morally ok but we shouldn't do it) If it isn't wrong, why not solve the problem of unwanted children by killing babies? Why not save our society the money it will take to educate them?

Your baseline for worth(self awareness) is absolutist and arbitrary. I could set the line at another measure say 75 IQ points and then claim you were attacking my beliefs when you told me it wasn't morally ok to kill the mentally handicapped. It would be no different then the sophistry you're trying to pull.

But I haven't back pedaled. Not at all. I gave you my reason for my opinion. The fact that you disagree with it is where our opinions on the subject clash. The more I read your posts, the more I realize the portrait you're painting of me is less than a person... you must have rolled at least a 6 in trollacity, and took the points from intellect and charisma.

I'll go along with arbitrary, but I think you need to look up both absolutism and arbitrary, because they're pretty opposite:

absolutist:
1. the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government.
2. any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Based on the first definition, how is holding the mother(who, as stated above, has near complete control) responsible to her own moral standings on the subject(to which she's been influenced by her upbringing) a reflection of complete and unrestricted power of the Government?

Based on the second definition, How is my stance of "I don't think you should do it, but I will leave the door open of allowing others to make the decision based upon their own conscience" absolute, and not relative, dependent, or changeable?

Arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

So, by most definitions there, yeah. Arbitrary would probably fit.

When did I say anything about worth? I believe you're the first person in this thread talking about worth. But since you're so interested in worth, as an open minded individual I decided I'd look that up too. Here's an article that gave me a good laugh. You see, you pull worth into the picture it just reinforces giving the baby up for adoption instead of putting it down. In America it's $35,000 for a white baby, $10,000 for latino baby, and $4,000 for a black baby.

As far as setting another measure at 75 IQ points, you got me sold. Heck, raise it to 78.. then I'm sure you'd qualify.

 

[babe]

But I haven't back pedaled. Not at all. I gave you my reason for my opinion. The fact that you disagree with it is where our opinions on the subject clash. The more I read your posts, the more I realize the portrait you're painting of me is less than a person... you must have rolled at least a 6 in trollacity, and took the points from intellect and charisma.

I'll go along with arbitrary, but I think you need to look up both absolutism and arbitrary, because they're pretty opposite:

absolutist:
1. the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government.
2. any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Based on the first definition, how is holding the mother(who, as stated above, has near complete control) responsible to her own moral standings on the subject(to which she's been influenced by her upbringing) a reflection of complete and unrestricted power of the Government?

Based on the second definition, How is my stance of "I don't think you should do it, but I will leave the door open of allowing others to make the decision based upon their own conscience" absolute, and not relative, dependent, or changeable?

Arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

So, by most definitions there, yeah. Arbitrary would probably fit.

When did I say anything about worth? I believe you're the first person in this thread talking about worth. But since you're so interested in worth, as an open minded individual I decided I'd look that up too. Here's an article that gave me a good laugh. You see, you pull worth into the picture it just reinforces giving the baby up for adoption instead of putting it down. In America it's $35,000 for a white baby, $10,000 for latino baby, and $4,000 for a black baby.

As far as setting another measure at 75 IQ points, you got me sold. Heck, raise it to 78.. then I'm sure you'd qualify.

yah, El. The reason we use different words in a sentence is usually because they mean different things, as in this case with "absolute" and "arbitrary". Sometimes we are trying to expand a list of subjects or properties of the subject, or sometimes we are trying to include closely related words. . . sorta fishing for one that describes what we mean, or expand the sense of meaning if our meaning isn't perfectly described by one word. . ..

IQ scores are another sort of "arbitrary" and absolutist measure of "intelligence" in my book. I know some people's thinking about the meaning of intelligence is not highly developed. I think they might just think IQ is actually the same thing, exactly. I don't.

When we humans think we have the moral authority to determine the worth and value of life, at any stage of development, I think we've crossed the line.

And I don't want people who degrade the value of life making decisions about health care for others after they are born, either.

 

[moevillini]

From a purely semantic standpoint this is correct. The man can cry, beg, cajole, ask, plead, threaten, bribe, or make any other number of attempts to influence the decision. In this way he has input. But in practicality the man has no say in the matter, and in the end he is forced to accept the decision of the mother regardless of his "input".

Obviously the issue is that this is entirely one-sided and does not take into consideration the fact that it took 2 to create the baby, yet only 1 is allowed to make any decisions regarding that child. A decision that will nonetheless affect both of the parties involved in conception. That in fact the male is stripped of all rights, and/or forced to take on responsibilities he may not have chosen for himself if he had truly had legitimate input into the decision.

typically men have the right not to get the woman pregnant in the first place - - it's difficult for me to imagine how that "right" might be taken away from them

 

[Harambe]

yah, El. The reason we use different words in a sentence is usually because they mean different things, as in this case with "absolute" and "arbitrary". Sometimes we are trying to expand a list of subjects or properties of the subject, or sometimes we are trying to include closely related words. . . sorta fishing for one that describes what we mean, or expand the sense of meaning if our meaning isn't perfectly described by one word. . ..

IQ scores are another sort of "arbitrary" and absolutist measure of "intelligence" in my book. I know some people's thinking about the meaning of intelligence is not highly developed. I think they might just think IQ is actually the same thing, exactly. I don't.

When we humans think we have the moral authority to determine the worth and value of life, at any stage of development, I think we've crossed the line.

And I don't want people who degrade the value of life making decisions about health care for others after they are born, either.

You have a point, but it still doesn't add up. You of all people should be on board.. less laws and regulation means less government. Making a person responsible for themselves instead of having rules, laws, and regulations within reason seems to be your thing. That's all I'm advocating in this situation.

 

[One Brow]

Obviously the issue is that this is entirely one-sided and does not take into consideration the fact that it took 2 to create the baby, yet only 1 is allowed to make any decisions regarding that child. A decision that will nonetheless affect both of the parties involved in conception. That in fact the male is stripped of all rights, and/or forced to take on responsibilities he may not have chosen for himself if he had truly had legitimate input into the decision.

When the man starts carrying the baby in his body, he can have the right to end the pregnancy.

More seriously, giving the men any sort of final say in the termination of a pregnancy does amount to giving them control of the the body of the woman. Outside of that, the expectation that they will care for a child is part of the whole notion of taking responsibility for your actions. YOu seem to support holding people responsible for their actions generally. Is there an exception here?

 

[One Brow]

typically men have the right not to get the woman pregnant in the first place - - it's difficult for me to imagine how that "right" might be taken away from them

Men can be raped by women. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get people to believe this.

 

[♪alt13]

But I haven't back pedaled. Not at all. I gave you my reason for my opinion. The fact that you disagree with it is where our opinions on the subject clash. The more I read your posts, the more I realize the portrait you're painting of me is less than a person... you must have rolled at least a 6 in trollacity, and took the points from intellect and charisma.

I'll go along with arbitrary, but I think you need to look up both absolutism and arbitrary, because they're pretty opposite:

absolutist:
1. the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government.
2. any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Based on the first definition, how is holding the mother(who, as stated above, has near complete control) responsible to her own moral standings on the subject(to which she's been influenced by her upbringing) a reflection of complete and unrestricted power of the Government?

Based on the second definition, How is my stance of "I don't think you should do it, but I will leave the door open of allowing others to make the decision based upon their own conscience" absolute, and not relative, dependent, or changeable?

Arbitrary:

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

So, by most definitions there, yeah. Arbitrary would probably fit.

When did I say anything about worth? I believe you're the first person in this thread talking about worth. But since you're so interested in worth, as an open minded individual I decided I'd look that up too. Here's an article that gave me a good laugh. You see, you pull worth into the picture it just reinforces giving the baby up for adoption instead of putting it down. In America it's $35,000 for a white baby, $10,000 for latino baby, and $4,000 for a black baby.

As far as setting another measure at 75 IQ points, you got me sold. Heck, raise it to 78.. then I'm sure you'd qualify.

I was going to respond to this but I think babe did a fine job.

ps I hate IQ snobs. When one treats someone as subhuman they become subhuman.

 

[♪alt13]

When the man starts carrying the baby in his body, he can have the right to end the pregnancy.

More seriously, giving the men any sort of final say in the termination of a pregnancy does amount to giving them control of the the body of the woman. Outside of that, the expectation that they will care for a child is part of the whole notion of taking responsibility for your actions. YOu seem to support holding people responsible for their actions generally. Is there an exception here?

I agree with that a woman has the right to remove the baby from her body. She has a right to control what does and doesn't grow inside her. However I don't think she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs here but I think it is an important distinction.

The Doctor can and should remove the child without terminating it's life. If it dies as a result of being removed fine, but the procedure itself should not kill the child.