Society/Culture The Abortion Thread

[Chief]

Way to avoid the question, it wasn't "should she be required to continue the pregnancy after <insert weeks required for legal abortion>"

Should a woman be required to follow through with a pregnancy if they've had consentual sex?

The question ignores the fact that time passes and things change.

So my answer is the same, but simpler:

After a point, yes. Before a point, no.

 

[owen87]

Before a point, no.

Ok, so therefore consent to sex =/= consent to parenthood (if you're a female).

They're distinct decisions, with distinct consequences.

 

[Chief]

Ok, so therefore consent to sex =/= consent to parenthood (if you're a female).

They're distinct decisions, with distinct consequences.

As I said:

Consent to sex is acceptance of all the possible outcomes.

In your example, the female might be in the position of choosing to have the child, then changing their mind too late and so having to go through with it under law. That is a possible outcome.

 

[owen87]

Consent to sex is acceptance of all the possible outcomes.

It's not, because at least one party still retains their choice of outcomes after that point.

The difference is you (appear to) fundamentally believe that consent to sex = consent to parenthood, therefore everything that follows is a logical chain. Though simply argeeing that voluntary abortion should exist breaks that chain of logic in my opinion, as it means at least one party has a choice in what the outcome will be after sex.

 

[Chief]

It's not, because at least one party still retains their choice of outcomes after that point.

Yes it is.

The choices one party is able to make determine some outcomes that are a sub-set of the set "all possible outcomes".

"Parenthood" is a sub-set of the set "all possible outcomes".

"The female gets to decide if I become a father or not" is in the set "all possible outcomes".

It might suck if you've been tricked into it through lies about contraception but the living child that comes into the world at birth has not been party to your decisions. They didn't fool you. They didn't cause contraception to fail. They should not be disadvantaged because the father can't handle the outcome of their choice.

 

[owen87]

Yes it is.

The choices one party is able to make determine some outcomes that are a sub-set of the set "all possible outcomes".

"Parenthood" is a sub-set of the set "all possible outcomes".

"The female gets to decide if I become a father or not" is in the set "all possible outcomes".

It might suck if you've been tricked into it through lies about contraception but the living child that comes into the world at birth has not been party to your decisions. They didn't fool you. They didn't cause contraception to fail. They should not be disadvantaged because the father can't handle the outcome of their choice.

Again, you're missing the point I'm making.

Your position is that consent to sex = consent to parenthood, because that's a possible outcome, and therefore at the time of sex the man is consenting to each and every possible outcome of sex, for whatever reason.

Despite society arguing that voluntary abortion should exist specifically because women may not want that outcome, that consent to sex =/= consent to parenthood, that the decision to be a parent can occur after sex, as a distinct choice.

The logic is flawed.

 

[Chief]

Your position is that consent to sex = consent to parenthood, because that's a possible outcome, and therefore at the time of sex the man is consenting to each and every possible outcome of sex, for whatever reason.

No.

Both parties are consenting to all the possible outcomes.

One outcome for the female is "I choose to abort this pregnancy". The same outcome for the male is "the mother of what I consider my child has aborted the pregnancy".

Do you get it yet? The set of choices, outcomes, responsibilities for both parents is not exactly the same.

 

[owen87]

Do you get it yet? The set of choices, outcomes, responsibilities for both parents is not exactly the same.

The ability to choose isn't the same, therefore the consent isn't the same.

You're trying to argue a concrete situation, in what's not a concrete scenario.

For a society pushing increasing awareness of things like consent and equity, there's little equity in this scenario regarding consent.

Both parties are consenting to all the possible outcomes.

What if the outcome is that the mother is forced to carry the entire pregnancy against her will because the father wants to have the child?

 

[Roby]

They should not be disadvantaged because the father can't handle the outcome of their choice.

"The baby should not be disadvantaged because the father can't handle the outcome."

Why are we conceiving a child where the father doesn't want it? Isn't this a disadvantaged child already?

And who's to say the mother is able to make this decision on her own?

You also have chosen to not respond to why a perceptible unique human with a functioning brain, nervous system, heart and the ability to probably feel pain is allowed to be chopped up and disposed of. But I guess we know the answer to that already.

 

[Chief]

You also have chosen to not respond to why a perceptible unique human with a functioning brain, nervous system, heart and the ability to probably feel pain is allowed to be chopped up and disposed of. But I guess we know the answer to that already.

Because it’s emotive language. It’s not going to be a discussion.

 

[Chief]

What if the outcome is that the mother is forced to carry the entire pregnancy against her will because the father wants to have the child?

Under law and plain old moral sense, that’s not an outcome.

 

[owen87]

Under law and plain old moral sense, that’s not an outcome.

Again, good discussion.

Obviously you're unable or unwilling to consider anything beyond your consent to sex is consent to every outcome (at least if you're a male) position, so we're at an impasse.

 

[Chief]

Again, good discussion.

Obviously you're unable or unwilling to consider anything beyond your consent to sex is consent to every outcome (at least if you're a male) position, so we're at an impasse.

It's not a possible outcome at the moment.

You really want that to be a possible outcome?

 

[owen87]

It's not a possible outcome at the moment.

You really want that to be a possible outcome?

It was a possible outcome when abortion wasn't legalised, still is a possible outcome in many places.

But again, so long as your position is that consent to sex is consent to every possible outcome, then there's nowhere we can take this.

 

[Chief]

It was a possible outcome when abortion wasn't legalised, still is a possible outcome in many places.

But again, so long as your position is that consent to sex is consent to every possible outcome, then there's nowhere we can take this.

What else is it? You KNOW what can happen. If you don't, you're uninformed. If you tell your partner "OK but if a baby comes out, I'm having nothing to do with it" and think this is a verbal contract overriding the law of the land, you're an idiot.

If you come to an agreement on the birth of the baby that leaves you without needing to provide anything, then fair play. You escaped your responsibilities.

If a person sees parenthood as a set of stocks they are trapped in, they need to remember they walked up and stuck their own limbs in.

 

[owen87]

What else is it? You KNOW what can happen. If you don't, you're uninformed. If you tell your partner "OK but if a baby comes out, I'm having nothing to do with it" and think this is a verbal contract overriding the law of the land, you're an idiot.

If you come to an agreement on the birth of the baby that leaves you without needing to provide anything, then fair play. You escaped your responsibilities.

You're skipping over the entire portion of events that occur between intercourse and the baby being born for a start.

There's a ~ 24 week period where voluntary abortion can be performed if the woman decides she doesn't want to proceed with parenthood for a start.

Again, if your position is outright consent to sex is consent to every outcome then there's no possible discussion to be had. Though by that stance, why is voluntary abortion even a thing?

 

[Chief]

You're skipping over the entire portion of events that occur between intercourse and the baby being born for a start.

There's a ~ 24 week period where voluntary abortion can be performed if the woman decides she doesn't want to proceed with parenthood for a start.

Again, if your position is outright consent to sex is consent to every outcome then there's no possible discussion to be had. Though by that stance, why is voluntary abortion even a thing?

I don't know what you mean.

As the male, you consent to the fact that the mother has the option to abort without consulting you.

This is plain, simple fact.

If you don't consent to that, go to court. If you don't consent, get the law changed. Good luck with that.

 

[owen87]

I don't know what you mean.

As the male, you consent to the fact that the mother has the option to abort without consulting you.

This is plain, simple fact.

If you don't consent to that, go to court. If you don't consent, get the law changed. Good luck with that.

As I said, there's little point in trying to discuss, your position is pretty fixed.

 

[Chief]

As I said, there's little point in trying to discuss, your position is pretty fixed.

OK. I know you think it shouldn't be this way, but it is.

 

[owen87]

OK. I know you think it shouldn't be this way, but it is.

I think people should consider something more than the status quo, yes. Keeping in mind that at one point voluntary abortion was made legal on the basis of improving choices available (among other things).

 

[Roby]

Grest discussion Chief - get the law changed. I suppose Muslim women in Iran should stop complaining about their human rights and get the law changed, otherwise deal with it, it's common sense.

In the US I suppose when you put your child in school you have willingly entered into a contract where one of the outcomes is someone is free to purchase an AR-15 rifle and consequently mow down your child. You can always home school, right?

 

[Chief]

No Roby

Those are not LEGAL outcomes.

 

[Monkey King]

I don't get what you mean by "ideologies". I don't think you're using the word properly, really.

After this point, the male's opinion becomes pretty much subservient to the female's through the simple fact that she is the one who is gestating.

At birth the situation changes and the child is a new human whose wellbeing comes to the fore. The law recognises this.

I haven't heard any good arguments why it should not be this way. It's based on practical considerations, not theoretical. So, it's not "ideological".

It's based on some practical considerations and ignores others on the basis of certain ideas you have.

The light of a good argument would not shine through the logic traps you've surrounded your opinion with. There's been a number of points raised that you either ignore or gloss over.

 

[Monkey King]

As the male, you consent to the fact that the mother has the option to abort without consulting you.

I know males who vehemently objected to the termination of their unborn child.

The sheer effrontery that you would claim that as being consent. That's pretty ******* rapey if you ask me.

Grest discussion Chief - get the law changed. I suppose Muslim women in Iran should stop complaining about their human rights and get the law changed, otherwise deal with it, it's common sense.

I suppose African Americans consented to their slavery all those years. And the Indigenous consented to handing their lands over to European settlers.

I mean, if you can't stop it from happening through might, legal or otherwise, then you must be consenting right?

 

[Monkey King]

If a person sees parenthood as a set of stocks they are trapped in, they need to remember they walked up and stuck their own limbs in.

So wait what ... you're anti-abortion now?