Abortion Rights

#26
#26
VOLatile said:
Honestly, I think it should totally be the woman. She has to carry it and there's no guarantee that the father will actually stick around.
Click to expand...

Then why should a man who wanted it terminated be forced to pay child support? If it's totally up to the woman shouldn't she bear total responsibility?
 
#29
#29
hog88 said:
Yep!

I don't know if it's still the case but it used to be that any child born in wedlock was the husbands regardless of who actually fathered it.
Click to expand...

I imagine things are somewhat different since we are in an age of single moms, and that isn't limited to the welfare octomoms that litter the hood with undisciplined kids.

My sister, for instance, is a single mother. As liberal as she is, she doesn't collect benefits and doesn't even want child support from the father. He just seeks joint custody to get back at her for leaving him after he turned into a drunk ass a year into my niece's existence.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
VOLatile said:
Honestly, I think it should totally be the woman. She has to carry it and there's no guarantee that the father will actually stick around.
Click to expand...

No she doesn't "have" to carry it. "Having" to carry it is a result of a decision she made prior to "having" to carry anything.
 
#32
#32
hog88 said:
Yep!

I don't know if it's still the case but it used to be that any child born in wedlock was the husbands regardless of who actually fathered it.
Click to expand...

This is true. Culturally, there has been a shift in perception regarding to whom the baby (fetus) belongs. Who's to say it will not shift again?
 
#33
#33
DinkinFlicka said:
It is also the result of her making the choice to keep it.
Click to expand...

Sure but the first decision is the most meaningful. Rape, incest, and if the womens life is in jeopardy are the only times abortion should be legal. The idea of a women choosing to get an abortion just because she doesn't like the outcome of a decision she made will always rub me the wrong way and in my opinion never be ok.
 
#34
#34
VOLinthaNATI said:
Sure but the first decision is the most meaningful. Rape, incest, and if the womens life is in jeopardy are the only times abortion should be legal. The idea of a women choosing to get an abortion just because she doesn't like the outcome of a decision she made will always rub me the wrong way and in my opinion never be ok.
Click to expand...

Obviously, we can agree to disagree here. I know it's only a matter of time before this thread devolves into an abortion debate.

We can agree on the concept of a conscious decision and the repercussions that accompany it, however.
 
#35
#35
McDad said:
Property Theory is a novel way of viewing this issue. However, I have a huge problem with the concept of sperm being gifted to the female. This notion is a recent development and a by product of our current society. If sperm is a gift, the man should make sure he presents his gift in a wrapped package. preferably latex covered in nonoxinal 9.
Click to expand...

I use the term "gift" to cover any form of releasing one's own property without a contractual expectation of exchange. Thus, in this context, throwing something in the garbage is "gifting". And, in said context, this notion is not a recent development and by-product of our current society. Men have been gifting and "spreading their seed", without any return expectation, for all of recorded history; just look at the encouraged and sanctioned mass-rapes that coincided with warfare. Those men certainly expected nothing in return, and they cared less whether some women either aborted the fetus through various primitive methods, killed the infant once born, or killed themselves, thus resulting in a de facto abortion.

Moreover, throughout recorded history, bastards have been the result of traveling merchants, nomads, spring-break vacationers, etc. These are men who desire sex, are willing to leave their sperm in whatever vagina is willingly, and ensure that there are no ways in which to be tracked and identified later, so as to avoid any responsibilities and/or duties to their sperm/child/sperm-receptacle.

These facts about human history make me extremely skeptical about the notion of a contract. Certainly, consent, at least implied consent, is something we see as morally imperative in order to engage in the sexual act; but, that implied consent is usually only tied to the limited engagement of the actual intercourse. It is rarely tied to the long-term effects of said act.
 
#36
#36
VOLinthaNATI said:
Sure but the first decision is the most meaningful. Rape, incest, and if the womens life is in jeopardy are the only times abortion should be legal.
Click to expand...

I assume that one of the principal motives in your stance against abortion is you believe the fetus is a living human being, correct?

Is the fetus of the victim of rape and/or incest less of a living human being? If not, then why do you permit one to kill this fetus? And, if the exception is made for this fetus, why not for the infant, toddler, child, or teenager that is the product of rape and/or incest?
 
#37
#37
therealUT said:
I use the term "gift" to cover any form of releasing one's own property without a contractual expectation of exchange. Thus, in this context, throwing something in the garbage is "gifting". And, in said context, this notion is not a recent development and by-product of our current society. Men have been gifting and "spreading their seed", without any return expectation, for all of recorded history; just look at the encouraged and sanctioned mass-rapes that coincided with warfare. Those men certainly expected nothing in return, and they cared less whether some women either aborted the fetus through various primitive methods, killed the infant once born, or killed themselves, thus resulting in a de facto abortion.

Moreover, throughout recorded history, bastards have been the result of traveling merchants, nomads, spring-break vacationers, etc. These are men who desire sex, are willing to leave their sperm in whatever vagina is willingly, and ensure that there are no ways in which to be tracked and identified later, so as to avoid any responsibilities and/or duties to their sperm/child/sperm-receptacle.

These facts about human history make me extremely skeptical about the notion of a contract. Certainly, consent, at least implied consent, is something we see as morally imperative in order to engage in the sexual act; but, that implied consent is usually only tied to the limited engagement of the actual intercourse. It is rarely tied to the long-term effects of said act.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You said nothing of this historical perspective in the other thread. You credited your personal experience for your concept of gifting.

"From personal experience and the understanding that a large percentage of men would gladly have intercourse with other women with no strings attached."
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
I assume that one of the principal motives in your stance against abortion is you believe the fetus is a living human being, correct?

Is the fetus of the victim of rape and/or incest less of a living human being? If not, then why do you permit one to kill this fetus? And, if the exception is made for this fetus, why not for the infant, toddler, child, or teenager that is the product of rape and/or incest?
Click to expand...

Believe me I have a hard time with the idea of any abortions at all but in the case of rape the victims whole life could literally be ruined depending on the current circumstances in their life and if they are going to be forced to carry a baby as the result of sex being forced on her against her will.
 
#39
#39
McDad said:
Interesting. You said nothing of this historical perspective in the other thread. You credited your personal experience for your concept of gifting.

"From personal experience and the understanding that a large percentage of men would gladly have intercourse with other women with no strings attached."
Click to expand...

And? My personal experience is backed by historical perspective. I do not see the problem.
 
#40
#40
VOLinthaNATI said:
Believe me I have a hard time with the idea of any abortions at all but in the case of rape the victims whole life could literally be ruined depending on the current circumstances in their life and if they are going to be forced to carry a baby as the result of sex being forced on her against her will.
Click to expand...

Is the argument, then, that imposed potentially miserable life prospects, short of death, justify killing other persons?
 
#41
#41
therealUT said:
Is the argument, then, that imposed potentially miserable life prospects, short of death, justify killing other persons?
Click to expand...

Nobody on this earth is capable of determining what is and what is not justifiable in terms of killing another person.
 
#44
#44
VOLinthaNATI said:
Because I have an opinion on a certain situation regarding abortions. I have no idea if it is truly justifiable or not.
Click to expand...

Seems like a worthless response. If you have no idea whether it is justifiable or not, then why would you support punitive sanctions for those who engage in such actions?

One could say they support corrective actions, but you could not, since you have no idea if the deed is unjust. One could say they support deterrent actions, but you could not, since you have no idea if the deed is unjust.

This leaves you with only one position: remove threats against you. But, how is someone that has an abortion a threat to you, a post-birth entity?
 
#45
#45
therealUT said:
Seems like a worthless response. If you have no idea whether it is justifiable or not, then why would you support punitive sanctions for those who engage in such actions?
Click to expand...

Because I have a brain that allows me to form my own opinions. It's really that simple.
 
#47
#47
therealUT said:
And? My personal experience is backed by historical perspective. I do not see the problem.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Didn't say it was a problem. Said it was interesting.

The historical context of men looking for any available vagina without any obligations for the offspring has some degree of validity. And it can also be said that number of men looking for this activity is relatively small and that it decreases as men age and form monogamous pair bonds.

The larger population throughout history have considered women to be a vessel which will carry the man's offspring. Historically, the men had more rights over the baby than the women. It is a recent development that these historical views are altered.
 
#48
#48
McDad said:
Agreed. Didn't say it was a problem. Said it was interesting.

The historical context of men looking for any available vagina without any obligations for the offspring has some degree of validity. And it can also be said that number of men looking for this activity is relatively small and that it decreases as men age and form monogamous pair bonds.

The larger population throughout history have considered women to be a vessel which will carry the man's offspring. Historically, the men had more rights over the baby than the women. It is a recent development that these historical views are altered.
Click to expand...

Historically, men had the rights they wanted because women did not have rights.
 
#49
#49
PKT_VOL said:
A buddy of mine and myself were talking about what ought to be abortion rights (both legally and morally).

We both agreed that if the man, either before the pregnancy or immediately afterwards, makes it clear that he wants to terminate the pregnancy, then he should be released of both moral and legal duty.

Contract Theory

Contract Theory would be that there is an implied contract between two parties who engage in sexual intercourse. The contract would entail that like the sexual act, both parties are equal. They would both have equal rights to the fetus due to the fetus would be theirs equally (equal genetics), equal consenting in sexual activity, and subject to equal consequences of said actions. Thus, if the fetus could only be terminated if BOTH parties agree. If one party agrees then the fetus must be born but the other would be absolved of their moral and legal responsibilities. The problem here would be if the father wanted to keep the fetus and the mother wanted to terminate. The mother would have to carry the child to term against her will.

Furthermore, many sexual activities happen under the influence of alcohol. Would such a condition negate an implicit contract or would it be viewed as the same as two horny individuals who engage in sexual activity without a care for possible long term consequences? Does it matter if the terms of the contract as stated above includes immediately after knowing about the pregnancy?

Property (Trut)

Under this theory, the fetus would be nothing more than mere property and would be viewed solely as a property dispute. The problems with this theory would include property rights and responsibility.

Property rights. One could look at it one of two ways. First, property rights would be exclusive to the mother. The egg is always with the mother and so is the fetus. The sperm is merely "gifted" the sperm by the father. Under this premise, the mother would retain all property rights (I believe TRUT is here). The second would be equal property rights; equal DNA in the child. The fact that the mother carries would be irrelevant to the issue.

The responsibility factor, as raised by my buddy, would be that sperm would be more closely thought of as a gun than a pen. In the fact that ownership of a gun entails certain responsibilities (both moral and legal) with ownership or gifting. This would be in contrast of no responsibilities associated with ownership or gifting of pen.

Game Theory

I had never really thought about this. My buddy is a big Game Theory guy (I like it, studied it, but not to his extent). The Game Theory can be thought of as a version of Contract Theory but with a way around the girl carrying the fetus to term against her will.

In the game tree/box, the woman would be afforded two options/choices; yes or no. A man would be afforded veto power (no) and complimentary yes (yes if she says "yes"; not yes if she says "no")

Thus,

W: Y M: Y- Both parties have full legal and moral responsibilities.
W: Y M: N- Woman carries to term, has full moral and legal responsibility; man is absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities
W: N M: N- Pregnancy is terminated.

I tried to keep it short.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Would like to see all of this rewritten with the premise that the "contract" is reached prior to sex (i.e. conception) and not either or. Much like choosing to donate to a lottery pool after the pool wins or loses.

Assuming Y is to bring the pregnancy to term:

W: Y M: Y- Both parties have full legal and moral responsibilities.
W: Y M: N- Sex does not occur (unlikely). At this time, the M decides to either use BC or get the woman pregnant. Woman carries to term, has full moral and legal responsibility; man is absolved of both morel and legal responsibilities
W: N M: Y- Sex does not occur or if it does, W insists on BC and if it fails the pregnancy is terminated.
W: N M: N- Pregnancy is terminated or use birth control for pete's sake.
 
#50
#50
McDad said:
Interesting. You said nothing of this historical perspective in the other thread. You credited your personal experience for your concept of gifting.

"From personal experience and the understanding that a large percentage of men would gladly have intercourse with other women with no strings attached."
Click to expand...

I actually read a historical concept into this......
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top