If abortion is banned in America, are you (as a man who had sex with and impregnated a woman) fully

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

What governmental intervention do you think isnt tyrannical?

Generally I think the role of the government is to protect rights or determined freedom/liberty of individuals in so far those freedom/liberties arent direct infringements on another individuals.

I think abortion has a couple areas of contention with this definition.
1. We have to determine who is an individial deserving of these rights.  Id include the fetus.
Some may say this determination shoukl be made by the individual but under law I dont believe this can be subjective.  Otherwise we could enslave/murder whoever we want under a subjective determination

2. We need to determine what is the majority infringement in the fetal/mother relationship. Mother bodily autonomy or fetal right to life.
For dependents, I believe the right to life extends a required care of the parents/state as they cannot protect this on their own as part of human nature. So id disagree with you on the fatherhood issue as well.
Additionally, the mother is the only one in the relationship that had a decision over how this relationship was created and her exercised right in bodily autonomy.  A decision made with knowledge of creating another dependent individual and the established relationship therein.

Dee

@Openminded

It is true that abortion, whether legal or illegal, will not change the incidence rates. Until recently (with the new bans on abortions) and since the 1980s, abortions have actually been declining steadily.

Yes.

I find it particularly offensive when men pontificate on abortion and pit the fetus against the ¨murdering¨ mother

It's despicable cowardly behavior and mostly comes from so called bully boy   men who  identify as being Christian, and feel it to be  a god given right to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

. Women need to bring men into the discussion of abortion.  After all, there are no unwanted pregnancies without a man´s contribution. What will the actual outcome be if abortion is banned in America?

Women  bringing  men into this conversation will sadly fail inth8s effect as  the US is a society that still identifies as being a " christianan nation" while totally ignoring the teachings of Jesus, the average American christian thinks Jesus would carry a gun , resist free medicine and healthcare for the poor , resist social welfare , housing and education for the poor.

How do you even begin to reason with a so called majority   "christian"  nation that sees Donald Trump as a model Christian?


Will more responsibility be placed on men? Will a man be held to not only financially providing for the baby, but emotionally and parentally from conception into adulthood? Will birth control responsibility be placed on men? Okay, let's get back to fatherhood complementing motherhood. We need more accountability from the men. And it starts by expecting more, legally and socially, from our men. 

The problem for American women that want self determination is they are against a male dominated mostly white christian mindset  that dominates.

And the orange man....ironically, he´s a bad seed that should never have fertilized.
The wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine. Letś HOPE for a better America.

I hope for a better America also but  if that vile bigoted , misogynistic, racist tub of lard Trump wins a second term  America is f-cked.

just_sayin

@Dee
It's despicable cowardly behavior and mostly comes from so called bully boy   men who  identify as being Christian, and feel it to be  a god given right to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

You don't need to be religious to know it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life.  See Secular Pro-Life.

A lie that is repeated again and again is that the child is the progenitor's body.  No, she may be in the woman's uterus, but her body is her own.  Not a single DNA strand shares the exact DNA as the women.  If abortion were really about a woman's body, then she would be the one dead after having an abortion.  Abortion is more accurately described as the killing of an innocent human life who is not the progenitor.  

Yes, we do tell people they can't kill other innocent people all the time.  

Women  bringing  men into this conversation will sadly fail inth8s effect as  the US is a society that still identifies as being a " christianan nation" while totally ignoring the teachings of Jesus, the average American christian thinks Jesus would carry a gun , resist free medicine and healthcare for the poor , resist social welfare , housing and education for the poor.

The vast majority of charity is provided by religious groups in the US.  That includes providing medical care, healthcare, housing, and social services.  People waiting for atheists to help them will die before that help ever arrives.  Research by the Lilly School at Indiana University found Americans with any religious affiliation made average annual charitable donations of $1,590, versus $695 from stingy atheists.  

How do you even begin to reason with a so called majority   "christian"  nation that sees Donald Trump as a model Christian?

What a false claim.  I don't know anyone who calls Trump a 'model Christian'.  People support Trump over leftists because his policies are not as racist, anti-Semitic, and bigoted as the left's are.  They support him because his policies help the economy, whereas Bidenflation has made it so that the average person has to make about a thousand dollars more a month just to have the same standard of living they had 4 years ago under Trump.  

John_C_87

@Openminded

 Openminded asked: What do you think rape and incest are

John_C_87 responded: They are a degrees of attempted murder with a higher criminal conviction rate.

Does Openminded agree with a more detailed whole truth. Rape and incest of a female at certain age is attempted murder due to reproduction. The delivery of posterity of a country?

If you understand that connection to established justice it might be better to describe abortion as a crime with an intentionally low conviction rate. Some people want the conviction rate to be higher and others want the conviction rate to be lower than it is now. What both groups of people or states of people are doing is leaving abortion a crime s they try to figure out criminal law. Female-specific amputation is to be part of a United States Consitutional Right that has no conviction rate at all. Female-specific amputation is part of something abortion will never be part of. The reason why is because of the connection abortion has already made, and established with justice. Female-specific amputation is a clean slate being presented to the global principles of established justice for all women at one time. A connection already argued as right with established justice as a just-cause for using lethal force in this matter.

What would a United States Constitutional Right describe with a series of truths and whole truths. Abortion when said between all women as a united state of right is the official order of termination of immigration process by use of lethal force which places the female at risk of loss of life. The United State Constitutional Right would explain by truth that the person who instigates the lethal force cannot be charged with the legal crime of any degree of murder, it is to young and mentally not capable to stand trial. The American United States Constitution right then would describe that the young and mentally incapable person is a property shared between the women and the Country to which she has been living and is citizen. A United States Constitutional Right would then by truth connect that when a person argues a termination performed by female-specific amputation is abridged to abortion there is a legal connection to the deaths that have occurred during the delivery of posterity to be place up of adoption or remain with the child’s ambassador by laws of nature.

John_C_87

@Openminded
It is true that abortion, whether legal or illegal, will not change the incidence rates

Abortion is criminal law you are found innocent, you are presumed innocent, you are found guilty and must appeal to regain innocence.

What will the actual outcome be if abortion is banned in America?

Abortion will not be banned, it is a criminal law, abortion is being strictly enforced and the laws are being legislated supporting the already established connection it as had with Europe to justice. Abortion is part of Americas U.S. Imports or better yet in an economic sense abortion is part of G.I.P. (Gross Imported Products). Buy American (Female-specific amputation), buy United State Constitution buying imported laws is not cheaper to anyone they have no United States Constitutional Right for safety and the cost to add them is getting ridiculously high. 

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

What governmental intervention do you think isnt tyrannical?

Generally I think the role of the government is to protect rights or determined freedom/liberty of individuals in so far those freedom/liberties arent direct infringements on another individuals.

I think abortion has a couple areas of contention with this definition.
1. We have to determine who is an individial deserving of these rights.  Id include the fetus.
Some may say this determination shoukl be made by the individual but under law I dont believe this can be subjective.  Otherwise we could enslave/murder whoever we want under a subjective determination

2. We need to determine what is the majority infringement in the fetal/mother relationship. Mother bodily autonomy or fetal right to life.
For dependents, I believe the right to life extends a required care of the parents/state as they cannot protect this on their own as part of human nature. So id disagree with you on the fatherhood issue as well.
Additionally, the mother is the only one in the relationship that had a decision over how this relationship was created and her exercised right in bodily autonomy.  A decision made with knowledge of creating another dependent individual and the established relationship therein.

We have debated this to the death already, and I do not know what either one of us can say to make the other one change his mind. I will just say that viewing a fetus as an "individual" makes no sense to me whatsoever, as is talking about its hypothetical rights - and even if it did make sense, it is tyrannical to control what happens inside a person's body, regardless of what creatures may reside inside.

To me it is a black and white issue. It makes more sense to talk about the right of trees to live, than the right of a fetal organism to live. Have you ever felt guilty when cracking a chicken egg? If so, you know what it feels like to have no regard for rights of an undeveloped organism, and that organism having the human DNA hardly alters the equation.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar
Maybe but at least this way I can respond to more logical arguments that attempt to follow the opposing arguments premises.

Most chicken eggs are not even fertilized when you crack them. Even if they were id still understand it to be an  ending of the chicken organism.

"having the human DNA hardly alters the equation."

I guess it matters what you mean by equation. Having code in which the organism has an inherent capability to develope human function would seem to change the equation from something that doesnt. The resulting outcome of the developmental process is different.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I do not know what "inherent capability" means in this context. Anything has an inherent capability to develop into anything since everything in this Universe is made up of the same small set of elementary particles (as far as we know). I personally do not care what has a capability to do what; I care about what actually does what. That I have an inherent capability to go outside and murder someone does not imply that I am a-priori a criminal.

My philosophy of classification of external entities is aligned with the "duck test" principle: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck - regardless of what is inside that duck. This can be a synthetic android duck with microchips inside, yet if externally for all intents and purposes it functions as a biological duck, I will treat it as if it was one. Similarly, an AI that is every bit as intelligent as a human adult I will treat as an adult worthy of respect.
By the same token, a human fetus is less interactable than a dog puppy, so its importance is less in my eyes than that of the dog puppy. I have never heard a non-speciecist argument that would imply that human fetus is more deserving of human rights than a puppy, and speciecist arguments are intrinsically erroneous according to the philosophy outlined above. If one's argument in favor of something having rights involves its DNA, or its skin color, or its ability to survive in space with no equipment, then that argument is of little interest to me.

Even if all other arguments are to fail, it is hard to argue against the hard fact that giving the government control over what happens inside the human body is practically... unwise.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

How is your duck test principle consistent with the current view of equal rights for individuals?  It seems to me that your philisophical view would lean inevitably to anarchism where the smartest/strongest are free to do whatever they want.
Even if you place a minimum standard for personhood, it doesnt seem to stay consistent. You are measuring in this instance mostly intellectual prowess as value and therefore seemingly creating a spectrum of rights where the intelligent deserve more than the unintelligent even of the same species.

Seemingly this would lead to societal collapse if anyone is free to make this determination for themselves.
I think a level of specieism is required in determining a base set of rights.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Generally I think the role of the government is to protect rights or determined freedom/liberty of individuals in so far those freedom/liberties arent direct infringements on another individuals.

@MichaelElpers

I agree that the rights, freedom, liberty of individuals should be protected as long as an act done by said individual does not infringe on another individual. But you assume that a fetus (before personhood is granted) is an individual.

Openminded

Argument Topic: We need to determine what is the majority infringement in the fetal/mother relationship. Mother bodily autonomy or fetal right to life.

@MichaelElpers

What is being more infringed upon if a woman chooses abortion, the fetal right to life or the autonomy of the motherś body? Here is where you oversimplify and I believe are dissociated from a woman´s worth. The decision to have an abortion affects women in many profound ways. If abortion is criminalized, it is not just a ¨my body, my business¨ issue. The decision to have a baby is a lifelong commitment. Choosing to have an abortion is a decision a woman must live with for life. Choosing to have a baby is a decision a woman must live with for life. To list the autonomy of the mother´s body as the only infringement is short sighted. You may be thinking of the young women protesting ¨bans off my body¨. As this is the most obvious, in-your-face infringement on a woman. These are young women who will not allow the government, and frankly men, to restrict what she can do with her body. As I said, hell hath no fury than a woman whose rights are taken from her. But I assure you the decision to have an abortion is a complex one and not just about losing control of our own bodies.

Openminded

Argument Topic: For dependents, I believe the right to life extends a required care of the parents/state as they cannot protect this on their own as part of human nature. So id disagree with you on the fatherhood issue as well. Additionally, the mother is the only one in the relationship that had a decision over how this relationship was created and her exercised right in bodily autonomy.  A decision made with knowledge of creating another dependent individual and the established relationship therein. 

@MichaelElpers
I do not understand what you are saying here? Can you clarify this?

Openminded

Argument Topic: It's despicable cowardly behavior and mostly comes from so called bully boy men who identify as being Christian, and feel it to be a god given right to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

@Dee
I wholeheartedly agree!

I do believe that if abortion is in fact banned, that men most definitely need to share the responsibility in the creation of a human being. And I do believe they will be held to participating in birth control. As it should be.
What a world we´re living in post trump.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Im not making the assumption the fetus is a person, im making an argument that it is one.  That is one of issues being discussed.  Which is why i need you to respond to the arguments i presented on your concept that pain/consciousness determine personhood.

Im not dissassociating from a womans worth.  All the arguments you presented as far as the financial burden, parental responsibility ect have no bearing if we consider the fetus to be a person.
If these considerations trumped a persons worth, than parents could kill their 5 year old.  On the other hand if the fetus is not a person, than there would be no reason too small for parent to consider termination. These external reasons really provide nothing to the argument.
Your argumentation on the issue not solely being about the right bodily autonomy but the ability to erase responsibility and life decisions shows how truly selfish and evil this sentiment truly is.
Zeusares argued women just want control over their bodies and the death of the fetus is a secondary outcome of that.  You proved my point this is not the case.  If the fetus could be removed without killing, that would not satisfy your need to escape the responsibilities.

The reason bodily autonomy draws into focus is some would argue even if the fetus is a person, right to bodily autonomy would allow the killing of the child anyway.

Dee

@just_sayin


You don't need to be religious to know it is morally wrong to kill an innocent human life.

Well I suggest you don't do it then seeing as you feel that strongly about it.

It is morally wrong in my opinion for anyone to force a woman to give birth against her will and threatens her with punishment useless she agrees.


  See Secular Pro-Life.

Why?


A lie that is repeated again and again is that the child is the progenitor's body.  No, she may be in the woman's uterus, but her body is her own. 

OK remove it from the woman body then seeing as she's not in it , amazing a uterus is not part of a woman's body now , really?


 Not a single DNA strand shares the exact DNA as the women

So what?


  If abortion were really about a woman's body, then she would be the one dead after having an abortion

But abortion is about a woman riding herself of an unwanted is that not about her body?



.  Abortion is more accurately described as the killing of an innocent human life who is not the progenitor.  

That's the way you describe it , abortion is more accurately described as the removal of the unwanted which is there by a woman's permission which may be withdrawn.



Yes, we do tell people they can't kill other innocent people all the time.  

So do I.

Women  bringing  men into this conversation will sadly fail inth8s effect as  the US is a society that still identifies as being a " christianan nation" while totally ignoring the teachings of Jesus, the average American christian thinks Jesus would carry a gun , resist free medicine and healthcare for the poor , resist social welfare , housing and education for the poor.

The vast majority of charity is provided by religious groups in the US

The vast majority of prisoners in the US identify as " christian " your point is?

If the population of the US  mostly identify as" Christian"  why would it be any other way , you really need to think before you type as you say an awful lot of silky things.

.  That includes providing medical care, healthcare, housing, and social services.  People waiting for atheists to help them will die before that help ever arrives.  Research by the Lilly School at Indiana University found Americans with any religious affiliation made average annual charitable donations of $1,590, versus $695 from stingy atheists.  

Read above.

How do you even begin to reason with a so called majority   "christian"  nation that sees Donald Trump as a model Christian?

What a false claim.  I don't know anyone who calls Trump a 'model Christian'.

Stop it , are you for real?

  People support Trump over leftists because his policies are not as racist, anti-Semitic, and bigoted as the left's are

That's hilarious , Trump a compulsive who called white supremacists " fine people" and is a rabid anti- semetic and bigot  and you call him a " christian " right ? Jesus would hate him.

.  They support him because his policies help the economy, whereas Bidenflation has made it so that the average person has to make about a thousand dollars more a month just to have the same standard of living they had 4 years ago under Trump.  

They support him because he's a bigot , racist, money grabbing loon just like the average American Republican christian is , birds of a feather.

Dee

@Openminded

Keep speaking your mind without fear , the ( mostly)  religious nuts who  attempt to drive societies  back 100 years or more  detest the fact that women are entitled to equality and full bodily autonomy and worse still they think any woman that doesn't bring a fetus to term should be criminalised putting the US on the same footing as some of the most tyrannical countries in the world.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

How is your duck test principle consistent with the current view of equal rights for individuals?  It seems to me that your philisophical view would lean inevitably to anarchism where the smartest/strongest are free to do whatever they want.
Even if you place a minimum standard for personhood, it doesnt seem to stay consistent. You are measuring in this instance mostly intellectual prowess as value and therefore seemingly creating a spectrum of rights where the intelligent deserve more than the unintelligent even of the same species.

Seemingly this would lead to societal collapse if anyone is free to make this determination for themselves.
I think a level of specieism is required in determining a base set of rights.

I am quite sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism indeed - and, of course, in a free system the smartest and the strongest have the highest chance to succeed. What I oppose to is coercion, in its all forms. The duck test tells me what practically useful category to attribute a being to - it does not tell me what one is to do with that attribution. I do not see any inconsistencies in my standard, although I clearly cannot describe it in all detail within the bounds of this conversation - nor do I necessarily have all the details figured out. I cannot explain to you all the nuances of why I treat elephants as I do, but I can quite clearly explain why I treat them differently from humans.

I think that the current system in which people mostly follow other people's ideas, indeed, would collapse if everyone took philosophy seriously and thought for themselves. What would instead emerge is a different kind of society, one in which people think hard about issues, debate them openly and are not afraid of expressing unpopular views. If tribalism dies, everyone will be a winner. And a society of individuals taking philosophy seriously will converge onto a much more reasonable set of norms than the one currently in place.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

I dont disagree with your second paragraph.

I think your first leaves a lot of questions but understand deeper philisophical discussion takes lot of time and effort.
Why do you treat elephants different than humans?
Do you think rights for humans should exist on a spectrum?
I have a hard time believing people dont have some level of speceist mindset.  Are you ok with AI taking over?

John_C_87

@Dee

Keep speaking your mind without fear , the ( mostly)  religious nuts who  attempt to drive societies  back 100 years or more  detest the fact that women are entitled to equality and full bodily autonomy

Entitled, a liberty must be earned, neither a woman nor a man is entitled to a United States Constitutional Right. Right is held united by man, by a woman, or by both, and the size of the state of the union describes if both hold the same right or not. Discrimination of any kind is not a constitutional right it is a written criminal law. This truth can be held self-evident. A united state of constitutional right is not close in interpretation to any united state of criminal wrong.

and worse still they think any woman that doesn't bring a fetus to term should be criminalised putting the US on the same footing as some of the most tyrannical countries in the world.

  Abortion is an international criminal law imported into a Country that has both criminal law and United State Constitutional Right. Dee, you have already said that it is you who does not understand right from wrong. A woman is created equal to all women by their creator, Presadera. This one word is one of those creators of right between all women as a United States Constitutional Right, it is just like a magic trick look Dee no crimes, no discrimination, no perjury's, and no lies nothing in our hands but truth. It is such a new truth it had to be given a named just like it had been a new born baby, the right was conceived by the labors of every women in the world and me, American Constitutional Right, and 1st Amendment.  

Openminded

Argument Topic: Im not making the assumption the fetus is a person, im making an argument that it is one. That is one of issues being discussed. Which is why i need you to respond to the arguments i presented on your concept that pain/consciousness determine personhood.

@MichaelElpers
You believe a zygote is a person at conception. You likely believe in creationism. I believe the development of a zygote is a gradual process and it takes months for the fetus to develop into a viable human being. I believe in evolution.  We are worlds apart and at an impasse. Until the next debate.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

I dont disagree with your second paragraph.

I think your first leaves a lot of questions but understand deeper philisophical discussion takes lot of time and effort.
Why do you treat elephants different than humans?
Do you think rights for humans should exist on a spectrum?
I have a hard time believing people dont have some level of speceist mindset.  Are you ok with AI taking over?

Elephants operate mostly by instinct; they are biological machines that exhibit very sophisticated behaviors, but humans cannot interact with them in a meaningful way on the level they can with each other. You cannot have a conversation with an elephant, for instance. Therefore, I see elephants from the human perspective as much closer to a video game character than to a human.
Yet elephants are still far more interactable than a human fetus. So if we are to talk about rights, at the very least elephants should have no fewer rights than a human fetus. A human fetus is closer to something like a tree or a mushroom as it does not even have direct agency over basic motions of its own body.

I do not think of rights of humans at all, but, rather, rights of conscious beings. I suppose I am somewhat skeptical of the concept of "rights" in itself - rather, in my own life I use the concept of something like "appropriate treatment". Whether a child should have fewer rights than an adult is a complicated question; whether a child should be treated same way as an adult is not. I have no problem with a 50-year old smoking, and I have some problem with a 2-year old smoking - there is some spectrum of appropriate treatment with respect to smoking, but I do not know what it is. I think that this kind of questions is exactly what people should have conversations about. Not "does a fetus have rights?" (the question is somewhat absurd in my eyes), but "how far does guardianship extend?". In a more advanced society as per my philosophy, discussions about what should be "legal" and "illegal" are replaced with discussions about what is a good and bad response to a particular social dilemma. In the context of an anarcho-capitalism system, public law is replaced by private law, and people vote with their feet and their wallets for what social norms they want to live under. If there is a group of people who view abortion as abhorrent, they are free to build a private community in which all members agree to not partake in abortion - and face heavy private sanctions otherwise. Conversely, if there is a group of people who do not believe so, the former group does not get to change their minds by force.

To your last question, it really depends on the scenario of the takeover. If it is a group of rogue AIs wiping out all biological life forms, then of course I would view it as undesirable. But if it is instead a group of highly advanced AIs morally and intellectually who offer a better set of values and who receive their powers from consenting humans, then that is a dream scenario. Look at the job human politicians do, and compare it to a job a fair, impartial and benevolent AIs would do...

Dee

@Openminded ;

I'm afraid no good will come of arguing with M.E. the guy is a Catholic who fully supports an organisation that robustly defends priests worldwide who abuse children, worse still the Catholic church under John Paul upheld the churches prohibitions on condoms which lead to death and millions of  aids orphans, ME is just fine with this 

John_C_87

Not "does a fetus have rights?" (the question is somewhat absurd in my eyes), but "how far does guardianship extend?

Just want to point out the fact Yes, a fetus has been given criminal rights already by the writing of Criminal International laws that had started from outside of America. Then as a National import had been brought into America which is a home to law of United States Constitutional Right.

John_C_87

You believe a zygote is a person at conception. You likely believe in creationism. I believe the development of a zygote is a gradual process and it takes months for the fetus to develop into a viable human being. I believe in evolution.  We are worlds apart and at an impasse. Until the next debate.

This is an excuse to not take the time or effort to write a United States Constitutional Right as law by women. Just as discrimination was an excuse to not make the efforts to have women adopted into the Articles of American Constitution. America writes criminal law that contradicts itself all the time much like the world has always had done before its beginnings. The idea that the principles of debate between openminded, MichaelElpers, and Dee are worlds apart and at impasse is a lie. All three of you share the same principle of only allowing criminal law to govern the termination of immigration of a nations: all future generations, Posterity,

Posterity Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Openminded

Argument Topic: The idea that the principles of debate between openminded, MichaelElpers, and Dee are worlds apart and at impasse is a lie. All three of you share the same principle of only allowing criminal law to govern the termination of immigration of a nations: all future generations, Posterity,

The belief in creationism and the belief in evolutionism is, I believe, deeply rooted in oneś upbringing. If I had more time, I´d be more inclined to continue this debate. Your posts JohnC87 are deeply thought provoking and I often do not understand your point. I apologize that Iḿ not sure I´m fully understanding ¨All three of you share the same principle of only allowing criminal law to govern the terminationi of immigration of a nations: all future generations, Posterity.¨ Can you explain in layman´s language?

Openminded

Argument Topic: I'm afraid no good will come of arguing with M.E. the guy is a Catholic who fully supports an organisation that robustly defends priests worldwide who abuse children, worse still the Catholic church under John Paul upheld the churches prohibitions on condoms which lead to death and millions of aids orphans, ME is just fine with this

@Dee
New Debate Issue coming, time permitting,  about the Texas woman who will be forced to carry her fetus to full term. The fetus has Trisomy 18 and has a 50% chance of being born alive, and if born, will only survive 1-2 days. This oughta be interesting.

GiantMan

Openminded said:

@just_sayin
39 lives lost is many

So how many late term abortions are there each year?  How many die from those?

Dee

@Openminded

Interesting,  post it up should be fun.

GiantMan

Openminded said:

@MichaelElpers
You believe a zygote is a person at conception. You likely believe in creationism. I believe the development of a zygote is a gradual process and it takes months for the fetus to develop into a viable human being. I believe in evolution.  We are worlds apart and at an impasse. Until the next debate.

A zygote is a stage of development, not a different species.  

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Id like to note Dees take on me has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor the legitimacy of my arguments. This is solely an ad hominem attack which is pretty consistent with Dee reputation, note the troll award.
I rarely converse with Dee anymore because of this, a consistent strawman of arguments and an ignoring of arguments he doesnt like to respond to.
The truth is if youre really looking to debate/present arguments, and challenge your ideals you should be able to converse with anyone having a good faith conversation. Ive not called names, strawmanned your arguments.

I am Catholic, but that doesnt mean i dont condemn child abuse or covering up of it. I dont claim the church has been free of issues.  The church also may condemn use of condoms following a bibilical understanding, however they are not some tyrannical organization preventing people from using them. Youve got free will, the church doesnt prevent one from using it..  This is the only response ill make here as this is a complete diversion of this thread.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Its hard to have a debate when your not following the arguments/premises the opposition is making.  I wish youd at least respond to the specific argument that im individually making, not generalities from republicans, pro lifers or ignoring statments completely. Thats where the impass comes from.

I too believe in evolution. Clearly human beings go through a developmental process but the use of the word viable is subjective to the environment.
There is no denying to be viable outside the womb generally thats around 24 weeks.  The issue is our viability as human beings is always a product of our environment.  You cannot live without oxygen.
If you believe in biological states and evolution its important to that the viability of the fetus is exactly set up for the natural developmental process of the human being.  If the fetus breathed like you and I in the womb they would drown.
Additionally viability is dependent on technology.
I find it hard pressed to believe one would consider a 24 week old a person in America but not in Africa because one would be viable and the other not.

Openminded

Argument Topic: So how many late term abortions are there each year? How many die from those?

@GiantMan
Less than 1% of abortions are late-term. These are done to save the life of the mother, to save the life of the fetus who are diagnosed with severe birth defects, and those that will not survive outside the womb.

GiantMan

Openminded said:

@GiantMan
Less than 1% of abortions are late-term. These are done to save the life of the mother, to save the life of the fetus who are diagnosed with severe birth defects, and those that will not survive outside the womb.

@just_saying pointed out that over 12,000 late-term abortions happen a year.  You are mistaken about the reasons for late-term abortions.  

We do not know how accurately these narratives characterize the circumstances of women who seek later abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly or life endangerment. But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.5, 21 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4521013

Openminded

Argument Topic: The Debate Title was (supposed to read) If abortion is banned in America, are you (as a man who had sex with and impregnated a woman) fully prepared to be accountable for the fetus from conception to adulthood?

@MichaelElpers
See original debate title. THAT was my original debate title. Will men be fully prepared to accept greater responsibility, financially, emotionally, and parentally for supporting the fetus from conception through adulthood? Will men also be prepared for the overwhelming backlash from women - especially young tough-minded, independent women - to accept greater responsibility such as being 100% involved in birth control? Seems this is fair considering a woman´s right to govern her own body will be stripped from her. Itś naive to think that the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade will not greatly affect men. Not all men are aware of the pregnancies they have participated in as women have had the choice of abortion. With abortion rights stripped, you can bet more men will be facing greater responsibility. As I said, when we talk about abortion, let´s begin to bring men into the scenario.

MichaelElpers

@Openminde

If you look back to my initial response I have no problem making men responsible for their actions in the reproductive act.
100% should be required to provide care/financial backing.

Im not sure what you mean by men being 100% involved in birth control.
Sex is a consenual act, either party can refuse if the other is not using protection up to their standards.  If you want men to have a vasectomy you 100% can require that on the personal level.

John_C_87

Can you explain in layman´s language?

I can only try to explain...

As a woman you are arguing degrees of crime on a law written outside the secure boundaries and borders of American Constitutional Right ( Abortion law) and brought into America because you as part of all females have not been declared independence from such laws yet with American men… This is a mistake that has cost the lives of American women possibly women I have known, not that “they” American women are more important than women of other nationalities globally. It is simply a whole truth.

I am compelled by law of nature to declare all women are created equal by their creator as a common defense to the general welfare of all people in this matter. As I am so compelled to declare them equal I must to describe the nature of my grievance that a women is equal to all women by titling her not Queen, King, or President but as Presadera of a United State of Constitutional Right within America. It is and was always an argument over national security of law not religion.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Im not sure what you mean by men being 100% involved in birth control. Sex is a consenual act, either party can refuse if the other is not using protection up to their standards. If you want men to have a vasectomy you 100% can require that on the personal level.

@MichaelElpers
Itś wonderful that you believe the man should bear financial responsibility. What are the odds that the majority of men will?

Women have historically beared the responsibility of birth control for obvious reasons. If abortion is banned, she knows that one slip up, that one mistake, that one human flaw, that one impromptu biological teenage sexual frenzy,  that one missed pill that´s caused a 20 lb. weight gain, that one old, ineffective diaphragm because she couldn´t afford to, or didn´t have time to replace it, that one Copper IUD that causes hormone imbalance, that sponge that limits protection against STDs, that one slip up -  that THAT will change the trajectory of her entire life. A self-respecting woman will not allow herself victimhood; she´d rather be a warrior than a victim.  If abortion is banned she will ensure her sexual partner be accountable by involving him. She will 1) insist he share at least 50/50 responsibility of birth control - if not 100% bear the responsibility. This will require more than the 98% effective condom; many women are extremely fertile and that 2% is still not enough. So the reintroduction of male birth control will make a comeback and likely cause the many, many side effects that women have beared throughout history 2) ensure with 100% conviction, that the father is financially responsible and take measures to hold him responsible if needed 3) Require he have a vasectomy 4) Refuse sex altogether. Practice abstinence. Sound easy to you? Ask a man if he´s willing to practice abstinence. Once again, the onus is on the woman. Hell hath no fury than a woman whose rights are stripped from her - and largely by men.

John_C_87

@Openminded

If abortion is banned, she knows that one slip up, that one mistake, that one human flaw, that one impromptu biological teenage sexual frenzy,  that one missed pill that´s caused a 20 lb. weight gain, that one old, ineffective diaphragm because she couldn´t afford to, or didn´t have time to replace it, that one Copper IUD that causes hormone imbalance, that sponge that limits protection against STDs, that one slip up -  that THAT will change the trajectory of her entire life,

In other words, it is the natural act of pregnancy which has made it impossible for women to establish their own independence form English law and write a United States Constitutional Right to their very independence. It can be true pregnancy and the threat of pregnancy might be the cause of being unable to display an needed ability to preserve, protect and serve American Constitutional Right, after all I am male and cannot become pregnant and that make perfect sense as to why I can write such words as Presadera and Female-specific amputation which are both United States Constitutional Rights. Holding all women without crime as created equal by their creator. Notice I wrote "created equal" as it is a right as law and not a criminal law which creates the equality between women.

When you want to establish and hold a United States Constitutional Right between all women birth control is not the ideal principle the medication is a posterity inhibitor not birth control. The fact is many women do take the inhibitors as a type of control over pregnancy and birth, but the wording does not address a factual United State to be held for use between all women. Keep in mind a united state right as reason behind a principles wording does not need to describe the reason why everyone is taking a drug or medication by vote. It must only describe how every woman may take a medication or drug without any principle of crime being the reason a control of overpopulation or where a woman lives at any given time in their life is an act to ensure independence. For the record the reasons for a women not being written into the Delcaration of Independence as created equal by their creator was the faact that at the time the penalty for treason in England was

High Treason against the reigning sovereign. Until 1814 the particular heinousness of the crime could mean the convicted traitor suffered hanging, drawing, and quartering. Remained a capital offence until the bringing into force of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 c 37 s 36, when replaced by life imprisonment.

Treason - Legal history: England & common law tradition - Oxford LibGuides at Oxford University

Yes, sexual descriminaltion was also taking place publicly and it had proven itself to be a issue of great concern it pailed in comparission.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

I think the majority of men already do provide financial support and are required to be financially responsible. It is already law men are obligated to pay for child support. Do you have data that shows different?

Unless youve been raped or sexually assualted both parties are 100% responsible for the level of birth control used.  The consequence for  women not using is greater which likely makes them more cautious but I disagree they bear more or less responsibility.  Again consenual act, that means either side can set the boundaries and requirements they are comfortable with.

There are many actions that change the trajectory of a persons life. Drunk driving one time but killed a person. Responsibility is not always easy but it is still your decision.  Honestly just sounds like you have an issue with responsibility.

"Hell hath no fury than a woman whose rights are stripped from her - and largely by men."

Not only is the end of this statement false but what does this provide to the argument? Upwards of 40% of women are prolife in America.  

Dee

ARGUMENT TOPIC : MICHAEL ELPERS THINKS HE DECIDES ISSUES OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL 

Honestly just sounds like you have an issue with responsibility
.@MichaelElpers


Honestly just sounds like you cannot accept women being responsible  for their own life decisions which you seem to think is yours to decide , you're quiet the little tyrant aren't you?

John_C_87

Honestly just sounds like you cannot accept women being responsible  for their own life decisions which you seem to think is yours to decide , you're quiet the little tyrant aren't you?

I think that women have proven they cannot be responsible for all of their own life decisions very few people really can without help of some kind. Women have not yet made a declaration of independence claiming they are all in fact equal. Besides, as I understand the facts the introduction of abortion into America has contributed to the death of my sister and very possibly many more women over the years. It is a criminal law with no United States Constitutional Right.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I think the majority of men already do provide financial support and are required to be financially responsible. It is already law men are obligated to pay for child support. Do you have data that shows different?

@MichaelElpers
My point is that if abortion is banned, there will be hundreds more unwanted pregnancies which will involve many more lifelong commitments and paternal responsibility for the father. 

Openminded

Argument Topic: Unless youve been raped or sexually assualted both parties are 100% responsible for the level of birth control used.  The consequence for  women not using is greater which likely makes them more cautious but I disagree they bear more or less responsibility.  Again consenual act, that means either side can set the boundaries and requirements they are comfortable with.

@MichaelElpers
Yes, both parties should be responsible for birth control. To be clear, I am speaking about unintended pregnancies that occur outside of marriage and outside of established relationships. The unintended pregnancies that may occur during adolescence when the hormones of both sexes are raging. In those circumstances, are you saying that birth control is shared equally by both the young man and young woman? What imaginative, fantastical world do you live in? Neither has reached full maturity, and the male is typically behind in emotional maturity. 

Openminded

Argument Topic: There are many actions that change the trajectory of a persons life. Drunk driving one time but killed a person. Responsibility is not always easy but it is still your decision.  Honestly just sounds like you have an issue with responsibility. 

@MichaelElpers
Not all adolescents are the same. Some young teens can be responsible but have a weak moment. And yes, it is true that these mistakes do have consequences. If there is an abortion ban, young men will need to be made more aware of the consequences and take on the responsibility of birth control.  I have no issues with responsibility. I´m just realistic and I understand that teens are still maturing and are subject to risky behaviors.

Openminded

Argument Topic: "Hell hath no fury than a woman whose rights are stripped from her - and largely by men." Not only is the end of this statement false but what does this provide to the argument? Upwards of 40% of women are prolife in America. 

@MichaelElpers

The Congress decides if abortion will be banned. Currently in the senate: 75% men, 25% women; the house: 71% men, 29% women. It is relevant.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

"My point is that if abortion is banned, there will be hundreds more unwanted pregnancies which will involve many more lifelong commitments and paternal responsibility for the father."

And?

"In those circumstances, are you saying that birth control is shared equally by both the young man and young woman? What imaginative, fantastical world do you live in?"

How are they not shared?  There are only 2 parties involved performing a consenual act, they both have full control to say yes or no.  Who else could possibly be sharing responsibility?

Whose denying teenagers may make decisions?  Again they can do that with drunk driving, that doesnt mean i think drunk driving should be legal.

Well actually state legislation now decides on abortion but even so who gives a crap.  Only a sexist thinks this way.  
Do you only think men can have opinions on men and vice versa?Congress makes laws based on the electorate that voted them in.  Of the women in congress you will find quite a few pro life women.
Next the inital abortion stance and womens right to vote was majorly decided by men.  Should those be reversed because they werent decided by women?

Openminded

Argument Topic: "My point is that if abortion is banned, there will be hundreds more unwanted pregnancies which will involve many more lifelong commitments and paternal responsibility for the father."And?

@MichaelElpers

This involves an elevated level of responsibility on the young man´s part. Just an observation. A new mindset for young men - and actually father´s of young men. That´s a good thing. Involve the men.

Openminded

Argument Topic: How are they not shared?  There are only 2 parties involved performing a consenual act, they both have full control to say yes or no.  Who else could possibly be sharing responsibility? 

@MichaelElpers

if you believe that men share equally with women birth control responsibility then so be it. I´ĺ try to find statistics on this. But in doing more research, it seems there is a significant percentage (an estimated 17 million) of men who are dissatisfied with condoms and withdrawal techniques. My point is that given the possibility of abortion ban, I believe the further development of male birth control will be expedited. As of yet, they have introduced a gel with is released from a pump to be applied to the male´s shoulder. Unfortunately, this hasn´t progressed because pharmaceutical corporations believe it won´t sell as the side effects for men won´t be tolerated. Surprised? Men won´t tolerate the side effects. But men will have to tolerate side effects, as women have for decades, if a ban passes. The men will be involved more.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

"Men are dissatisfied or wont tolerate the side effects as woken have for decades."

And again it is there choice. Women dont have to tolerate side effects either they just have to determine which is more important for them.
Women can equally tell the man, wear a condomn, get a vasectomy, or use this gel or im not having sex with you. Men will get the picture.

John_C_87

@Openminded

As the recent publicity shows from Texas there is no ban on abortion, it is simply a law that is being enforced after decades of not being enforced. The problem is it is still an unconstitutional law, and it has no Constitutional equal besides, it was written outside the United States of America and adopted by states operating in the Constitutional union. While women have not declared any independence from international law. Though with good intentions it is possible the district court has opened International and federal violations of patient privacy of the unborn child. Thus the issue of running all governing of the people through criminal law.  Abortion is simplified as a 4th, 5th, or 6th degree type murder and a medical condition is used to explain alibi and a clearing of a criminal accusation of a form of murder. Abortion law also in a way makes one of the Constitutional arguments over it use a question of if a state has a 1st Amendment right when writing criminal law.

You can quote me. In order for there to be a perfect state of the union there must also be at least one imperfect union to reach justice. I am Arguing Openmided there should not be one way to the perfect connection between people and justice.