Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:43 am "it's not a matter of 'right or wrong'."

I disagree. At the very least: the question of 'right' and 'wrong' figures into the woman's choice. This is: if she finds abortion 'wrong', she won't abort even if doin' so would perhaps simplfy her life. Another woman, believing abortion is okay, might have one, even when she has no over-riding reason to.

#

"It's whether or not she requires it."

Why might she require it?

#

"Are you trying to encroach on someone else's FREEDOM Henry? Surely not."

Is the aborting woman encroaching on someone's freedom and life?

No, because it's totally dependent on her for its life and everything it needs in that life, for the next couple of decades. It's not an equal partnership. When are children ever 'free'? You shouldn't use words like 'freedom' unless you are prepared to define exactly what you mean when you use them.
It's very easy for males to pass judgement. You pieces of shit have been leaving women in the lurch with offspring for as long as people have been having sex. So just fuck off when it comes to women's reproductive affairs.

"No, because it's totally dependent on her for its life and everything it needs in that life, for the next couple of decades. It's not an equal partnership."

But, surely that's not the baby's fault, yeah? It didn't come a'knockin' at the door, demandin' to be let in. Instead it was 'invited'. Doesn't that invitation impose an obligation on the woman, and the man?

#

"When are children ever 'free'?"

Never.

#

"You shouldn't use words like 'freedom' unless you are prepared to define exactly what you mean when you use them."

You first"

#

"You pieces of shit have been leaving women in the lurch with offspring for as long as people have been having sex."

Many men go to court lookin' to assert parental rights only to have crapsack courts side with crapsack moms: 'you gotta pay and you got no say'. Seems to me there's bad behaviour on both sides.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:54 am No, because it's totally dependent on her for its life and everything it needs in that life, for the next couple of decades.

"For the next couple of decades..."

So infanticide is also just fine, by your rule. So would killing your ten-year-old be. After all, she might be "dependent on you" for a "decade" or two.

It's very easy for males to pass judgement.

Not material.

Male or female judgment is not made right or wrong by being male or female, but by being right or wrong.

women's reproductive affairs.

"Reproduction" is just a "woman's affair"?

Okay, let me get your meaning: so men shouldn't be responsible for things like, a) getting a woman pregnant, b) having any opinion about whether or not the child lives and is brought to term, or c) supporting a woman in any aspect of child rearing -- unless, of course, for some reason the man just wants to do that? If not, he can just tell the woman to go 'pound sand'? After all, you say that none of that is his "affair," up to an including "a couple of decades" after the insemination? That's what you say?

That's your take on it, is it?

I see absolutely no reason to think you're right about that, of course. But I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what you think "fair" means.

Veggie wrote:
"You pieces of shit have been leaving women in the lurch with offspring for as long as people have been having sex."

But that must be perfectly fair.

After all, you say, reproduction is 100% a woman's problem, up to and including a couple of decades after birth. So inevitably, that's how the argument rolls.

So these so-called "p.o.s.'s" must actually be completely morally fine by you, and not deserve to be likened to excrement. Apparently, they owe nothing to women, and women are telling them to stay out of reproduction. That's how it is, in the world according to Veggie.

Henry responded:
Many men go to court lookin' to assert parental rights only to have crapsack courts side with crapsack moms: 'you gotta pay and you got no say'. Seems to me there's bad behaviour on both sides.

I'm with you on that, Henry.

But apparently, the bad behaviour in courts is only on the female side, since Veggie says that men have no business making any decisions about women's reproduction. There is thus no reason for men to be in court at all, she says. So this business of women hauling men into court, to ask them to pay for children the women have given birth to, must be 100% bad female behaviour. That's the only logic possible from her position.

Why then they end up being "p.o.s.'s," in her estimation, is a mystery to us all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 1:30 am

Veggie wrote:
"You pieces of shit have been leaving women in the lurch with offspring for as long as people have been having sex."

But that must be perfectly fair.

After all, you say, reproduction is 100% a woman's problem, up to and including a couple of decades after birth. So inevitably, that's how the argument rolls.

So these so-called "p.o.s.'s" must actually be completely morally fine by you, and not deserve to be likened to excrement. Apparently, they owe nothing to women, and women are telling them to stay out of reproduction. That's how it is, in the world according to Veggie.

Henry responded:
Many men go to court lookin' to assert parental rights only to have crapsack courts side with crapsack moms: 'you gotta pay and you got no say'. Seems to me there's bad behaviour on both sides.

I'm with you on that, Henry.

But apparently, the bad behaviour in courts is only on the female side, since Veggie says that men have no business making any decisions about women's reproduction. There is thus no reason for men to be in court at all, she says. So this business of women hauling men into court, to ask them to pay for children the women have given birth to, must be 100% bad female behaviour. That's the only logic possible from her position.

Why then they end up being "p.o.s.'s," in her estimation, is a mystery to us all.

There's a bit of a difference between fucking, and giving birth and being entirely responsible for another, totally dependent, human being.
So yes, keep your fat snout out of it. Normal men realise it's none of their damn business. Have you always been so obsessed with female reproductive biology? Perhaps you should learn a bit more about it then, because your 'knowledge' is laughable.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:25 am There's a bit of a difference...

You'd better explain.

You say that the woman either chooses to have a baby, or slaughters her baby (or even her child, up to the age of 20, or "two decades" as you put it) without any compunction. Nobody can tell her, "Hey, stop murdering that child," you say. It's the woman's choice, you say.

And, you say, the man has no right intervene to save the life of his infant daughter, or even to ask that she be born and put up for adoption: only the woman gets to say, you say.

So far, so good?

But then you say that the man owes the woman to pay her money if she makes the choice not to slaughter the child or put her up for adoption. And he's a "p.o.s." for having any compunction about paying for "two decades" based on a decision that is 100% the woman's, you say.

Exactly why is that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 1:30 am

Veggie wrote:
"You pieces of shit have been leaving women in the lurch with offspring for as long as people have been having sex."

But that must be perfectly fair.

After all, you say, reproduction is 100% a woman's problem, up to and including a couple of decades after birth. So inevitably, that's how the argument rolls.

So these so-called "p.o.s.'s" must actually be completely morally fine by you, and not deserve to be likened to excrement. Apparently, they owe nothing to women, and women are telling them to stay out of reproduction. That's how it is, in the world according to Veggie.

Henry responded:
Many men go to court lookin' to assert parental rights only to have crapsack courts side with crapsack moms: 'you gotta pay and you got no say'. Seems to me there's bad behaviour on both sides.

I'm with you on that, Henry.

But apparently, the bad behaviour in courts is only on the female side, since Veggie says that men have no business making any decisions about women's reproduction. There is thus no reason for men to be in court at all, she says. So this business of women hauling men into court, to ask them to pay for children the women have given birth to, must be 100% bad female behaviour. That's the only logic possible from her position.

Why then they end up being "p.o.s.'s," in her estimation, is a mystery to us all.

How ironic. You call it 'hauling men into court' to help pay for their offspring (mission impossible for vast numbers of women), yet you think women should be forced to produce children they don't want?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:36 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:25 am There's a bit of a difference...

You'd better explain.

You say that the woman either chooses to have a baby, or slaughters her baby (or even her child, up to the age of 20, or "two decades" as you put it) without any compunction. Nobody can tell her, "Hey, stop murdering that child," you say. It's the woman's choice, you say.

And, you say, the man has no right intervene to save the life of his infant daughter, or even to ask that she be born and put up for adoption: only the woman gets to say, you say.

So far, so good?

But then you say that the man owes the woman to pay her money if she makes the choice not to slaughter the child or put her up for adoption. And he's a "p.o.s." for having any compunction about paying for "two decades" based on a decision that is 100% the woman's, you say.

Exactly why is that?

Murder is a legal term, moron, which is why it's not classified as murder when your beloved military slaughters human beings in their own countries.
Why such tender regard for other people's lentils?
We all know you don't give a flying fuck about embryos so stop the ridiculous facade. It's all about women 'paying for their sins' and having the audacity to have sex. You just can't stand that women could actually have some control over their own reproduction. Misogyny, misogyny, misogyny. At least be honest about it. Kristianity has always been obsessed with repressed sex and reproduction. Hypocritical to a 'T'. At least the catholic church doesn't have that sort of power any more. My own Irish catholic gg grandmother had thirteen children. FFS. That's just obscene. What would someone like that do without any kind of support? Husbands died, ran off, lost their jobs, became invalids etc. etc. not to mention seeing your children starving in a famine. Several of that family were born in the workhouse. But of course all of that is music to your kristian ears. Suffering is 'so good for the soul'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:37 am How ironic. You call it 'hauling men into court' to help pay for their offspring

I didn't. You did. That's the unavoidable implication of your position.

Taking legal action against a man presumes he was responsible for something...that he incurred liability for a choice he made. But you say men have no choices in regards to abortion...so it was 100% the woman's decision to incur any liability. And one person cannot oblige another person to incur responsibility -- he has to have made a decision that made him liable.

But you say, when it comes to reproduction, men are not allowed any say. They're 100% out, even if you want to murder (yes, that's the legal term for the willful killing of a child) their child anytime before his/her 20th birthday. I suppose you would even have to say it was never "their" child at all...it was always "hers," the woman's.

So that means the man cannot possibly have incurred any responsibility -- he has no choices in the existence or non-existence of any children. They are then not his fault, according to you.

Of course, I think you're crazy as a bedbug about this. But hey, it's your theory, not mine.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 4:19 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:37 am How ironic. You call it 'hauling men into court' to help pay for their offspring

I didn't. You did. That's the unavoidable implication of your position.

Taking legal action against a man presumes he was responsible for something...that he incurred liability for a choice he made. But you say men have no choices in regards to abortion...so it was 100% the woman's decision to incur any liability. And one person cannot oblige another person to incur responsibility -- he has to have made a decision that made him liable.

But you say, when it comes to reproduction, men are not allowed any say. They're 100% out, even if you want to murder (yes, that's the legal term for the willful killing of a child) their child anytime before his/her 20th birthday. I suppose you would even have to say it was never "their" child at all...it was always "hers," the woman's.

So that means the man cannot possibly have incurred any responsibility -- he has no choices in the existence or non-existence of any children. They are then not his fault, according to you.

Of course, I think you're crazy as a bedbug about this. But hey, it's your theory, not mine.

It was your words you scurrilous liar. And why would I argue about something that is neither mine nor your business? I'm just pointing out what a disingenuous tosser you are.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 1:21 am "No, because it's totally dependent on her for its life and everything it needs in that life, for the next couple of decades. It's not an equal partnership."

But, surely that's not the baby's fault, yeah? It didn't come a'knockin' at the door, demandin' to be let in. Instead it was 'invited'. Doesn't that invitation impose an obligation on the woman, and the man?

#

"When are children ever 'free'?"

Never.

#

"You shouldn't use words like 'freedom' unless you are prepared to define exactly what you mean when you use them."

You first"

#

"You pieces of shit have been leaving women in the lurch with offspring for as long as people have been having sex."

Many men go to court lookin' to assert parental rights only to have crapsack courts side with crapsack moms: 'you gotta pay and you got no say'. Seems to me there's bad behaviour on both sides.

Yeah. There are lots of crappy mothers who should never have had children. Duh! It's also all too common for estranged fathers to murder their children (the ones who have been forced by the courts to spend time with him) to get back at the mother.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 6:00 am It was your words...

It was your "logic."

...undergirding the thread.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck asks: Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

The answer to that (or the more general question: Is abortion an immoral thing to do?) can't be had till the following is addressed...

Does a pregnant woman carry a human being or just 'life'?

Is it a person or just meat?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:41 pm as much as I enjoy the snark and sniping

I wasn't, actually. I was sincere. I wasn't trying to be glib. I can't figure out how Veg thinks about this. Her view doesn't add up. I was trusting that in extremis, it would be possible she would have a reason.

But I think she's not going to explain anyway, so you're probably right that we ought to move on.

No, she was...it's entertaining, in small doses.