The husband of our vice president is telling men to "step up" to defend the right to kill a child. Real men will see through this evil charade.

[tall73]

Can you explain how a father takes care of a fertilised egg in the mother's womb?

While in some countries this may be handled by nationalized health care, in the USA prenatal visits cost money.

That's an interesting spin. But really besides the point. The baby no longer has a dependancy on the mother's physical body.

It is not spin at all. If the father and mother are obligated to care for it, that involves their labor.

They either are, or are not, obligated to care for it with their labor. And they are.

Not a claim I have made. Certainly very weird wording, It's like you are reaching for something.

I am pointing out your inconsistency. I hold both of them responsible for the life throughout the process. You have varying levels for man and woman, and also dependent upon whether the woman wants the life (but only until born), and you have the strange notion that people should be able to make medical choices--but also that it is fine if they are coerced.

You are not applying the principle of responsibility for the life to all the aspects. You are creating outs.

The woman has the right to autonomy over her own body, she can take the morning after pill or have an abortion if she wants, it's entirely upto her.

Just like they could let the child starve once it is born? They could decide to feed it or not? No, once you recognize one "should" you have recognized the presence of moral/ethical obligations. But you seem to apply them in a way to let everyone off the hook if they decide, or coerce. Which is not really applying the principle of responsibility.

Yeah, the man can't force the woman to take the morning after pill and cannot force the woman to endure an abortion. He has no rights to her body.

So then he cannot try to convince/coercer her as you said before? Wouldn't want to get that wrong I would think.

His obligation starts when the baby is born, not before.

Not what some courts have found. And not what consistent application of responsibility stemming from the act would result in.

I mean if you claim it is before, what is it that he does for the baby before it is born? does he put nappies on it? Does he feed it formula? Does he take care of it while the mum is at work?

In our context, they have been required to pay for prenatal care for the life and mother.

It's illegal for him to ask the woman to abort?

You will have to check the various jurisdictions as to their definition of coercion, pressure, etc. for specifics. I am fine with saying no one should ask a woman to abort.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, it is a person.

I'm aware of how biology works, thank you very much.

But you do accept that even a pregnant woman treats what she is carrying differently at a couple of weeks versu a few months. She doesn't consider them the same.

 

[stevil]

While in some countries this may be handled by nationalized health care, in the USA prenatal visits cost money.

Ah, yes, USA's horrible medical care system. Basically a cash grab.

Are prenatal visits compulsary or optional?

It is not spin at all. If the father and mother are obligated to care for it, that involves their labor.

I was talking about their bodies, so yeas, SPIN

I am pointing out your inconsistency. I hold both of them responsible for the life throughout the process.

I don't

You have varying levels for man and woman,

Yes, of course. A woman gets pregnant, a man does not.

and also dependent upon whether the woman wants the life (but only until born)

Yip, she has the privileged position of being able to abort a fetus from her womb. For some strange reason a man cannot abort a fetus from his own womb. I'm will to admit I'm not being consistent here, but I am accepting of reality though. So there's that.

, and you have the strange notion that people should be able to make medical choices--but also that it is fine if they are coerced.

I've never said people can coerce the woman. I just said the man can ask her to abort.
I am a proponent of choice, but it is ultimately her choice.

You are not applying the principle of responsibility for the life to all the aspects. You are creating outs.

Well, yes. I don't hold all life to be sacred. I'm happy for abortions, I'm happy for euthanasia.

Just like they could let the child starve once it is born?

Once the baby is born, it is no longer a matter of a woman wanting not to be pregnant. It is entirely a different scenario.

They could decide to feed it or not? No, once you recognize one "should" you have recognized the presence of moral/ethical obligations

I have no interest in moral/ethical obligations.

. But you seem to apply them in a way to let everyone off the hook if they decide, or coerce. Which is not really applying the principle of responsibility.

I really don't know why you use the term "off the hook" it seems loaded to me.

So then he cannot try to convince/coercer her as you said before? Wouldn't want to get that wrong I would think.

He can ask her, he can try to convince her.

Not what some courts have found. And not what consistent application of responsibility stemming from the act would result in.

There is no legal responsibility stemming from sex. The legal responsibilities kick in once the baby is born.

In our context, they have been required to pay for prenatal care for the life and mother.

Yay for USA.
In my country it is all free. No need to worry about suing or taking men to court to cover the cost of prenatal care.

You will have to check the various jurisdictions as to their definition of coercion, pressure, etc. for specifics. I am fine with saying no one should ask a woman to abort.

I'm fine with saying men have a first ammendment right to talk to the woman and to ask for an abortion.

 

[RileyG]

But you do accept that even a pregnant woman treats what she is carrying differently at a couple of weeks versu a few months. She doesn't consider them the same.

Yes. I know.

The embryo and fetus develop over time.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Women get to control their own bodies, including removing things from their bodies.
Men don't get a say in that.

But if a child is born, that child's life requires resources. The man and the woman are legally culpable to ensure the child has sufficient resources until it becomes an adult.

Of course. Men are always ultimately responsible... but they do not have the ultimate authority. That is ultimately unfair and, to a certain degree, makes them slaves. When it comes to wars and the buck stops here for bills... men do not have control of their own bodies. But then, this is a human culture and a human government. It will all change when Jesus returns.

 

[RileyG]

Women get to control their own bodies, including removing things from their bodies.
Men don't get a say in that.

But if a child is born, that child's life requires resources. The man and the woman are legally culpable to ensure the child has sufficient resources until it becomes an adult.

So? It’s still his child. He should definitely have a say.

What if ye wants to abandon the child all together? Is that ok? Again, why should he be forced to be a patent if he doesn’t want to?

 

[RileyG]

The rules are in your favour. Anti gay, prolife, pro Christian.

Depends what you mean by that

 

[tall73]

Ah, yes, USA's horrible medical care system. Basically a cash grab.

I am not a fan myself.

Are prenatal visits compulsary or optional?

The visits are optional, but if the mother opts for them, the father is held responsible in those jurisdictions.

I was talking about their bodies, so yeas, SPIN

So was I. If someone has to pay for expenses over decades, that certainly involves labor, which involves one's body, time, etc. Unless the person is independently wealthy. That is a rare exception.

Yes, of course. A woman gets pregnant, a man does not.

They both engaged in sex, they both brought about the life, and have responsibility for it.

And yes, women get pregnant, and men do not. That doesn't change the principle of responsibility for life you bring about. Which is the basis of the "should" you earlier agreed with, but only apply at certain points.

Yip, she has the privileged position of being able to abort a fetus from her womb. For some strange reason a man cannot abort a fetus from his own womb. I'm will to admit I'm not being consistent here, but I am accepting of reality though. So there's that.

In some places she does not have that privilege, it is illegal to abort, and they recognize responsibility based on actions. Just as they recognize the man and woman's responsibility to care for the child.

I've never said people can coerce the woman. I just said the man can ask her to abort.
I am a proponent of choice, but it is ultimately her choice.

Why ask? If it is her choice, why should he influence her? He has no choice in the matter at all, per your view, so why should he give his input?

And in some places it is not her choice. It is illegal. That is reality also.

You are not applying the principle of responsibility for the life to all the aspects. You are creating outs.

Well, yes. I don't hold all life to be sacred. I'm happy for abortions, I'm happy for euthanasia.

I believe you.

Now, explain why you see the man and woman having an obligation to support the child once born. Why do you hold that "should"?

tall73 said:​

​

They could decide to feed it or not? No, once you recognize one "should" you have recognized the presence of moral/ethical obligations​

Once the baby is born, it is no longer a matter of a woman wanting not to be pregnant. It is entirely a different scenario.

I have no interest in moral/ethical obligations.

Then explain why it is a different situation? Why can't they let the child starve?

If there is no moral/ethical obligation, then where does the obligation to feed the child come from?

I really don't know why you use the term "off the hook" it seems loaded to me.

Because they owe years of responsibility to the child if the child is not aborted, as even you seem to acknowledge. A man pressuring a woman to abort so he doesn't have to pay child support is trying to get "off the hook".

He can ask her, he can try to convince her.

Ah, convince! So you are back to coercing abortions.

There is no legal responsibility stemming from sex. The legal responsibilities kick in once the baby is born.

No, in the USA they can start sooner, for prenatal care, as noted.

Yay for USA.
In my country it is all free. No need to worry about suing or taking men to court to cover the cost of prenatal care.

Yes, and here it is not. And they are "on the hook". But of course, they should do it because they have a responsibility to the life they have brought about.

I'm fine with saying men have a first ammendment right to talk to the woman and to ask for an abortion.

And some states may be fine with putting in jail the person who coerces a woman to have an abortion.

 

[stevil]

The visits are optional, but if the mother opts for them, the father is held responsible in those jurisdictions.

If they are optional, then the man shouldn't be obliged to pay.
Of course the woman can ask the man to contribute, but he shouldn't be obligated.

So was I. If someone has to pay for expenses over decades, that certainly involves labor, which involves one's body, time, etc. Unless the person is independently wealthy. That is a rare exception.

SPIN

They both engaged in sex, they both brought about the life, and have responsibility for it.

Once (and if) it is born, sure.

And yes, women get pregnant, and men do not. That doesn't change the principle of responsibility for life you bring about. Which is the basis of the "should" you earlier agreed with, but only apply at certain points.

It addresses your complaints about a double standard.
I don't think either of the parents have any responsibility for the life of a fertilised egg. They can abort if the woman chooses to.
We have the technology, we can do it.

In some places she does not have that privilege, it is illegal to abort, and they recognize responsibility based on actions. Just as they recognize the man and woman's responsibility to care for the child.

Yeah, the context of the conversation is whether there should be a law outlawing it. Apealling to it being illegal is circular logic, it is a logical fallacy.

Why ask? If it is her choice, why should he influence her? He has no choice in the matter at all, per your view, so why should he give his input?

Are you married? Do you as a couple discuss things and make choices together? Even if ultimately it is your choice, do you not want to know your partner's opinion? Especially if your partner is going to then fork out money for the next 18 years.

And in some places it is not her choice. It is illegal. That is reality also.

Circular logic

Now, explain why you see the man and woman having an obligation to support the child once born. Why do you hold that "should"?

Once it is born it becomes a citizen of society and the govt is there to protect citizens, to make society safe and stable and thriving.

Because they owe years of responsibility to the child if the child is not aborted, as even you seem to acknowledge. A man pressuring a woman to abort so he doesn't have to pay child support is trying to get "off the hook".

OK, sure, in that context, yeah, people may want an abortion because they don't want to look after a child, financially and all the other obligations too.

Ah, convince! So you are back to coercing abortions.

Perhaps take some time to look up the definition of those two words. Try to focus on what the differences are.

No, in the USA they can start sooner, for prenatal care, as noted.

Yeah for USA!

But of course, they should do it because they have a responsibility to the life they have brought about.

Nah, responsibility starts when the baby is born. Of course the woman may chose to act responsibly earlier e.g. not smoke, not drink, not do drugs etc. But she is under no legal obligation.

And some states may be fine with putting in jail the person who coerces a woman to have an abortion.

Yah for USA, land of the free.

 

[stevil]

So? It’s still his child. He should definitely have a say.

What if ye wants to abandon the child all together? Is that ok? Again, why should he be forced to be a patent if he doesn’t want to?

Well, once the baby is born it needs care. It's either the government, the parents or a legal guardian.
Before it is born the mother gets to decide if she is going to be a parent or not. She can choose abortion. The father can ask the mother, and can try to convince her to have an abortion, but he can't force her. She holds the power as long as it is in her womb

 

[tall73]

I will address one aspect first, then perhaps address the rest, because I think it is the issue of where we are talking past each other.

Once (and if) it is born, sure.

Yeah, the context of the conversation is whether there should be a law outlawing it. Apealling to it being illegal is circular logic, it is a logical fallacy.

I am not appealing to the law. I am appealing to "should". I am pointing out the principle of responsibility for the life you helped create. I am pointing out an ethical/moral principle.

I use the illustration of the law when it shows society's recognition of the "should", or "ought", or moral/ethical principle. The purpose of that is not to use circular reasoning to support it. I am showing people already recognize the principle.

You too recognized a responsibility, but seem to want to avoid a "should". But if they have an obligation, that is a "should". So where do you derive it from?

I am saying it is derived from the ethical/moreal responsibility that you should support the life you helped to create. I am indicating it applies to both, from start to finish, not just as you wish because you "can" or have the "technology" or to get yourself off the hook.

Once it is born it becomes a citizen of society and the govt is there to protect citizens, to make society safe and stable and thriving.

Wait, didn't you you just say I appealed to the law in circular reasoning?

WHY is the government there to protect citizens? Where does that "should" come from?

 

[tall73]

Well, once the baby is born it needs care. It's either the government, the parents or a legal guardian.

Why does care needs to be given at all? Why not expose the child Roman style, for instance? To refer to your early statement, we have the technology, and apparently have for a while.

But, if there is an ethical/moral principle against exposing babies who you helped bring about, which I indicate there is, then we should not.

Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire* | The Journal of Roman Studies | Cambridge Core

Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire* - Volume 84

www.cambridge.org

 

[tall73]

If they are optional, then the man shouldn't be obliged to pay.
Of course the woman can ask the man to contribute, but he shouldn't be obligated.

But it is still required if she chooses to do it. Just like the man has to support the child if she decides to keep it.

And where do you get that "shouldn't" from? What is your basis?

 

[RileyG]

Well, once the baby is born it needs care. It's either the government, the parents or a legal guardian.
Before it is born the mother gets to decide if she is going to be a parent or not. She can choose abortion. The father can ask the mother, and can try to convince her to have an abortion, but he can't force her. She holds the power as long as it is in her womb

That’s pretty awful the father has no say whether his son or daughter can live or not.

Sick sick sick

 

[stevil]

That’s pretty awful the father has no say whether his son or daughter can live or not.

Sick sick sick

It's great that he has no say in what a woman does with her body. He doesn't get to claim it just because he has had sex with it.

 

[stevil]

But it is still required if she chooses to do it. Just like the man has to support the child if she decides to keep it.

And where do you get that "shouldn't" from? What is your basis?

It's optional. Like if the mother chooses to buy her daughter a playstation, the father shouldn't have to pay half. There is a matter of obligation for mandatory things and no obligation for optional things.

 

[stevil]

Why does care needs to be given at all? Why not expose the child Roman style, for instance? To refer to your early statement, we have the technology, and apparently have for a while.

But, if there is an ethical/moral principle against exposing babies who you helped bring about, which I indicate there is, then we should not.

Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire* | The Journal of Roman Studies | Cambridge Core

Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire* - Volume 84

www.cambridge.org

Once it is born it is a member of society and govt is there to serve members of society.

 

[stevil]

I am not appealing to the law. I am appealing to "should". I am pointing out the principle of responsibility for the life you helped create. I am pointing out an ethical/moral principle.

I have very little interest in your ideas about what is a moral principle or not.
You aren't the authority of morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ni

Nice dodge.

It's not a dodge. It's just a fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah. Maybe we should just stick to discussing Physics on some other thread. This topic wears me out.

Condolences on not escaping the thread quick enough I'll leave you to your "fun".