Abortion argument invalidates parental responsibility on the part of the man?

[oldcatholicguy]

The pro-abortion argument is that the woman is the only one with the right to determine if the child should live or die. Given that, shouldn’t pro-abortionists also be arguing that if the woman decides the child should live that the man can not be held liable for any support (parenting, financial, emotional, etc) for the child? I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

 

[TEPO]

The pro-abortion argument is that the woman is the only one with the right to determine if the child should live or die. Given that, shouldn’t pro-abortionists also be arguing that if the woman decides the child should live that the man can not be held liable for any support (parenting, financial, emotional, etc) for the child? I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

I have a hunch that women’s rights groups wouldn’t appreciate this thread very much. What they’d say is that the “fetus” is merely a ‘part’ of that woman’s body until birth -at which point, after birth, the ‘donor’ would then need to show some responsibility… But still, the woman gets to decide everything.? It’s not really fair at all.

 

[SpidersfromMars]

The pro-abortion argument is that the woman is the only one with the right to determine if the child should live or die. Given that, shouldn’t pro-abortionists also be arguing that if the woman decides the child should live that the man can not be held liable for any support (parenting, financial, emotional, etc) for the child? I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

As revolting as it is, some men’s rights groups have made that argument.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have a hunch that women’s rights groups wouldn’t appreciate this thread very much. What they’d say is that the “fetus” is merely a ‘part’ of that woman’s body until birth -at which point, after birth, the ‘donor’ would then need to show some responsibility… But still, the woman gets to decide everything.? It’s not really fair at all.

I think that pretty much sums it up. This does sort of highlight the primary disconnect in the way that most pro-choice people view abortion:

Before birth, the fetus is a clump of cells and an extension of the mother’s body that the woman can choose to do with as she pleases.

After birth, baby is unmistakably a separate indivudal with two parents, both of whom share responsibility for his/her creation and, therefore, his/her upbringing.

Pretty much the only way that pro-abortion argument (that it is solely the woman’s choice to kill the baby) can be convincing is if you believe that it’s not really a baby until after he/she is born.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

As revolting as it is, some men’s rights groups have made that argument.

Seriously? Lord help us.

 

[Minenedanielito]

Well, it takes two people to make a baby, I mean the woman didn’t get pregnant just by herself. Also, I have never understood how the man has no say on the baby when he/she is in the womb, but as soon as the baby is born they have to be financially responsible for the baby. it doesn’t make sense to me. These arguments have never convinced me.

 

[SpidersfromMars]

Seriously? Lord help us.

Apparently. Something along the lines of “Well if you couldn’t afford to raise the child alone then you could always have aborted it. Don’t complain to me now.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

It’s an argument I’ve encountered before. The general secular advice would be to avoid the scenario and be mindful of who you risk impregnating. Finding a financially well off person with the intentions of getting pregnant and securing financial support is sometimes the source of one’s interest in another*. But I suspect more harm would be done to children under other scenarios if this rule were eradicated and a man could totally divorce himself from all responsibility, liability, and accountability for a child being born.

*"…win the super bowl and ride off in a Hyundai…"

 

[Mumbles140]

I think that pretty much sums it up. This does sort of highlight the primary disconnect in the way that most pro-choice people view abortion:

Before birth, the fetus is a clump of cells and an extension of the mother’s body that the woman can choose to do with as she pleases.

After birth, baby is unmistakably a separate indivudal with two parents, both of whom share responsibility for his/her creation and, therefore, his/her upbringing.

Pretty much the only way that pro-abortion argument (that it is solely the woman’s choice to kill the baby) can be convincing is if you believe that it’s not really a baby until after he/she is born.

It’s so funny to watch my pro-abortion friends and family members get all gaga-eyed over my wife’s baby bump. They’ve been brainwashed and fed lies their whole lives, but their true human emotions know exactly what is inside the womb.

 

[marymary1975]

The pro-abortion argument is that the woman is the only one with the right to determine if the child should live or die. Given that, shouldn’t pro-abortionists also be arguing that if the woman decides the child should live that the man can not be held liable for any support (parenting, financial, emotional, etc) for the child? I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

Yes, you are right and what you have mentioned is one the points that make the pro choice position.contradictory, sexist and lacks any sense. The choice to have a child.is only the woman, the man has no.say in it, but if the woman’s choice e is to have the baby then the man has no choice at all and no reproductive rights. So much for what is being called pro “choice.” As I’ve always said in the pro choice movement the only choice is to have an.abortion, kiss good bye to any other choice.

Interestingly I.was present during a discussion between pro choicest on this topic and I was quite amused to find out that they are heavily dividend.in this topic and I was even more amused to hear them saying that at least pro lifers are consistent and equal but we are not :yup:

 

[marymary1975]

I think that pretty much sums it up. This does sort of highlight the primary disconnect in the way that most pro-choice people view abortion:

Before birth, the fetus is a clump of cells and an extension of the mother’s body that the woman can choose to do with as she pleases.

After birth, baby is unmistakably a separate indivudal with two parents, both of whom share responsibility for his/her creation and, therefore, his/her upbringing.

Pretty much the only way that pro-abortion argument (that it is solely the woman’s choice to kill the baby) can be convincing is if you believe that it’s not really a baby until after he/she is born.

Oh wait Joe and don’t forget to add that the unborn is a not a.baby if the mother doesn’t want the baby but the minute the mother wants the baby the same so.called cluster of cells with the same weeks in development magically turns into a.baby. basically you are human depending on your mother’s opinion.

 

[runningdude]

The pro-abortion argument is that the woman is the only one with the right to determine if the child should live or die. Given that, shouldn’t pro-abortionists also be arguing that if the woman decides the child should live that the man can not be held liable for any support (parenting, financial, emotional, etc) for the child? I ask because if we assume the pro-abortion stance that the right to life for the child is only held by the mother, logic dictates that she is also the only one that holds any responsibility for that child.

What social benefit is there for making this argument?

All it does is strengthen the alleged right of a women to ‘choose’. If pro-abortion feminists were to accept this as the ‘logical’ conclusion of their argument, then they would all the more insist that women should be allowed to ‘abort’ at will to avoid financial hardship. The argument does nothing to change their minds, and in fact would reinforce their beliefs regarding prenatal infanticide.

It is not some “gotcha” moment that will impress them.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What social benefit is there for making this argument?

All it does is strengthen the alleged right of a women to ‘choose’. If pro-abortion feminists were to accept this as the ‘logical’ conclusion of their argument, then they would all the more insist that women should be allowed to ‘abort’ at will to avoid financial hardship. The argument does nothing to change their minds, and in fact would reinforce their beliefs regarding prenatal infanticide.

It is not some “gotcha” moment that will impress them.

It’s not a “gotcha” argument, but a “have you really thought this all the way out” argument. The “right” of women to determine if their unborn child can live or not is becoming increasingly codified and accepted. At some point in the future (and if the other poster is correct in regards to what some men’s rights groups have put forth, not that far into the future) we will begin to see legal and social challenges to the idea that men hold any sort of rights, let alone responsibilities, toward their children. At some point, our legal system will be forced to claim that men can not be held responsible for their children because they do not have and never had any parental rights.

As for not seeing a social benefit for bringing up this point, it probably has none if you are only concerned with the current status of this issue. If you look at the issue as a whole and take a long term approach to understanding it and correcting it, you’d probably see a social benefit in pointing out future social and legal issues that will arise due to arguing that only one parent has any rights in regards to determining if their child can live or not.

Lastly, pointing out the faulty logic and faulty conclusions based on this logic is wrong because it will only reinforce a person’s adherence to the faulty logic? Um, ok…I guess we aren’t supposed to use the truth, reason, and logic to combat error and ignorance. What would you suggest we use instead? Half-truths, lies, and self-interest?

 

[runningdude]

It’s not a “gotcha” argument, but a “have you really thought this all the way out” argument. …

Lastly, pointing out the faulty logic and faulty conclusions based on this logic is wrong because it will only reinforce a person’s adherence to the faulty logic? Um, ok…I guess we aren’t supposed to use the truth, reason, and logic to combat error and ignorance. What would you suggest we use instead? Half-truths, lies, and self-interest?

Feminists have thought this out; they are not opposed to limited female privileges such as the exemption from combat duty, or as you point out, the right to child support. Both of these position ultimately derive from the natural law and are perfectly rational forms of discrimination,making them constitutionally legal and protected.

Men, by and large, pay for their children because they are “stepping up to the plate”. Other simply ignore the obligation. The case you’ve describe is already effectively possible; by societal privilege, men can simply dodge any financial responsibility for their children. Court orders you pay child support? Simply don’t… A minority of men may choose to pay child support based solely off the risk of contempt of court charges, but such charges are so rare as to be effectively meaningless.

This failure of masculinity is the primary driver of abortion in the world. If fathers stood up and were willing to protect and provide for there children, far fewer would be aborted. Mothers would not feel so desperate as to allow a ‘doctor’ to stab or poison her child rather than risk watching it grow up in poverty, and by extension, put her in poverty.

So to suggest that legalized abortion “logically” means that we must also legalize paternal abdication is a trite argument. Paternal abandonment is already the norm; making it de jure would have the negligible added effect of appeasing these loser’s consciences slightly. Abortion is sought after because of this very problem, and arguing that it is only logical to make the problem slightly worse is simply not an effective argument.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

As revolting as it is, some men’s rights groups have made that argument.

I’ve read about some women who agree with it as well. To them, it’s consistent with “her body, her choice” and think that either a woman can support the child on her own or that there are social service programs available to assist her. The number of women that adhere to this are small in number, I think and I can imagine more than a few flip-flopping on this quickly.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Feminists have thought this out; they are not opposed to limited female privileges such as the exemption from combat duty, or as you point out, the right to child support. Both of these position ultimately derive from the natural law and are perfectly rational forms of discrimination,making them constitutionally legal and protected.
Natural law does not provide for the exemption of women in the military, in combat positions, or in combat itself. Warfare and combat as defined and viewed by the Church takes it’s roots in the moral right and responsibility everyone has to defend themselves or others. Women have no less a right and responsibility then men. Then of course there is the issue of St. Joan of Arc (either she wasn’t really a saint [invalid since the Church has declared her such] and wasn’t acting under the direct orders of God [invalid again]; or God violated natural law [invalid argument]).

Men, by and large, pay for their children because they are “stepping up to the plate”. Other simply ignore the obligation. The case you’ve describe is already effectively possible; by societal privilege, men can simply dodge any financial responsibility for their children. Court orders you pay child support? Simply don’t… A minority of men may choose to pay child support based solely off the risk of contempt of court charges, but such charges are so rare as to be effectively meaningless.
Your example has nothing to do with the case I described earlier. In my case the man is legally protected from having any responsibility for the child. In your case the man simply ignores his legal obligations and the law itself. You’re trying to argue the equivalent of lifting/increasing the speed limit won’t have any legal/social impact since everyone already breaks the law and speeds anyway.

This failure of masculinity is the primary driver of abortion in the world. If fathers stood up and were willing to protect and provide for there children, far fewer would be aborted. Mothers would not feel so desperate as to allow a ‘doctor’ to stab or poison her child rather than risk watching it grow up in poverty, and by extension, put her in poverty.
I’d love to see where you get this idea from. It’s not the woman’s fault she goes out and gets an abortion. It’s, of course, the bad old evil man’s fault. Please.

So to suggest that legalized abortion “logically” means that we must also legalize paternal abdication is a trite argument. Paternal abandonment is already the norm; making it de jure would have the negligible added effect of appeasing these loser’s consciences slightly. Abortion is sought after because of this very problem, and arguing that it is only logical to make the problem slightly worse is simply not an effective argument.
You can’t abdicate what you don’t have. Perhaps you should reread what my OP is actually stating. As for trite, someone putting for your position on why the majority of women get abortions shouldn’t really accuse others of having a trite argument.

 

[runningdude]

…
Men, by and large, pay for their children because they are “stepping up to the plate”. Other simply ignore the obligation. The case you’ve describe is already effectively possible; by societal privilege, men can simply dodge any financial responsibility for their children. Court orders you pay child support? Simply don’t… A minority of men may choose to pay child support based solely off the risk of contempt of court charges, but such charges are so rare as to be effectively meaningless.
Your example has nothing to do with the case I described earlier. In my case the man is legally protected from having any responsibility for the child. In your case the man simply ignores his legal obligations and the law itself. You’re trying to argue the equivalent of lifting/increasing the speed limit won’t have any legal/social impact since everyone already breaks the law and speeds anyway.

This failure of masculinity is the primary driver of abortion in the world. If fathers stood up and were willing to protect and provide for there children, far fewer would be aborted. Mothers would not feel so desperate as to allow a ‘doctor’ to stab or poison her child rather than risk watching it grow up in poverty, and by extension, put her in poverty.
I’d love to see where you get this idea from. It’s not the woman’s fault she goes out and gets an abortion. It’s, of course, the bad old evil man’s fault. …
…

You are missing the very essence of my argument. Abortion is inherently irrational; to say something must “logically” follow from an irrational position is a meaningless statement. Pro-abortion feminists (the original feminists were strictly pro-life…), have already distorted logic and reason to justify aborting unborn children.

One of the key facts the use is that men already regularly abandon their children, consenting or advocating for the child’s destruction. Even having sex with a women know to be ‘pro-choice’ implies consent to abortion as a possible end to an unexpected pregnancy. It is a vanishingly small number of cases that a women aborts without the consent of the child’s father, except possibly where abuse is feared (itself another failure of masculinity…).

I have never met a pro-abortion advocate that truly thought abortion was a good thing in and of itself, but merely a means to avoid a worse burden, such as poverty or abuse in the most sympathetic cases, to loss of leisure and disposable income in the pure pathetic cases. Abortion is presented a solution to these ills; pro-abortion advocates would not “logically” argue to legalize paternal abdication when men abandoning their born or unborn children is already one primary reason among many reasons that motivate abortion.

Because abortion is already irrational behavior, no logical conclusions can be drawn from it. As humans are innately rational and moral, even pro-abortion advocates acknowledge mandatory child support as a rational and necessary public policy. Humans can only deviate from the moral mean for so long before returning to the logical path.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You are missing the very essence of my argument. Abortion is inherently irrational; to say something must “logically” follow from an irrational position is a meaningless statement. Pro-abortion feminists (the original feminists were strictly pro-life…), have already distorted logic and reason to justify aborting unborn children.

One of the key facts the use is that men already regularly abandon their children, consenting or advocating for the child’s destruction. Even having sex with a women know to be ‘pro-choice’ implies consent to abortion as a possible end to an unexpected pregnancy. It is a vanishingly small number of cases that a women aborts without the consent of the child’s father, except possibly where abuse is feared (itself another failure of masculinity…).

I have never met a pro-abortion advocate that truly thought abortion was a good thing in and of itself, but merely a means to avoid a worse burden, such as poverty or abuse in the most sympathetic cases, to loss of leisure and disposable income in the pure pathetic cases. Abortion is presented a solution to these ills; pro-abortion advocates would not “logically” argue to legalize paternal abdication when men abandoning their born or unborn children is already one primary reason among many reasons that motivate abortion.

Because abortion is already irrational behavior, no logical conclusions can be drawn from it. As humans are innately rational and moral, even pro-abortion advocates acknowledge mandatory child support as a rational and necessary public policy. Humans can only deviate from the moral mean for so long before returning to the logical path.

If the essence of your argument is that abortion is irrational, then your argument is rather weak. An irrational reason to get an abortion would be- you don’t like clowns, green is your favorite color, the voices in your head told you to. An immoral, but rational reason to get an abortion would be- economic concerns, health concerns, legal/social concerns. You’re basically trying to link morality and rationality together. It doesn’t work like that. One can undertake an irrational moral act as well as a rational immoral act.

 

[runningdude]

If the essence of your argument is that abortion is irrational, then your argument is rather weak. An irrational reason to get an abortion would be- you don’t like clowns, green is your favorite color, the voices in your head told you to. An immoral, but rational reason to get an abortion would be- economic concerns, health concerns, legal/social concerns. **You’re basically trying to link morality and rationality together. It doesn’t work like that. ** One can undertake an irrational moral act as well as a rational immoral act.

Except, this is exactly how Catholic moral theology works. The Natural Law tells that humans are innately rational beings, and that morality can be deduced through rational reasoning. By nature, we are protective of our species and especially protective of our young. It is against our nature and thus irrational to destroy our children…

Mortal sin is not about making rational choices, but making deliberate choices. To knowingly and deliberately act in an irrational manner is to commit mortal sin. The concerns you describe, according to moral theology, could potentially diminish one’s use of reason through fear, but do not add up to make abortion a rational choice.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Except, this is exactly how Catholic moral theology works. The Natural Law tells that humans are innately rational beings, and that morality can be deduced through rational reasoning. By nature, we are protective of our species and especially protective of our young. It is against our nature and thus irrational to destroy our children…

Mortal sin is not about making rational choices, but making deliberate choices. To knowingly and deliberately act in an irrational manner is to commit mortal sin. The concerns you describe, according to moral theology, could potentially diminish one’s use of reason through fear, but do not add up to make abortion a rational choice.

Your utilitarian definition above doesn’t work. If, by nature we are protective of our species and of our young then the only rational act in this scenario-

3 men on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with only enough water to allow two to survive until rescue-

-would be to murder one of the men. It would be irrational to not murder one individual in order to save the other two.

Perhaps our issue is that we are using different understandings/definitions of the words “rational” and “irrational.”