Male perspectives on abortion?

[Zenister 0]

start by defining 'Human'.
What are the shared characteristics of all members of the species Homo Sapien?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Where did I say that I know for sure it's not human at that point? Where did I even say that I don't *think* it's human at that point? You stated that you believe something and I asked why. Asking you to explain the basis of your belief does not necessarily mean that I believe the opposite.

My apologies. I didn’t mean to speak for you. So what’s your stance so we’ll have a frame of reference in this discussion? I think you know that of the ones who have been in this conversation for a while.

Quote

So far I believe you are the only person to state in this thread that I don't consider it human. All *I* said was that it doesn't seem to have much in common with humans.

Ok. I agree with you on this one.

Quote

Agreed, the debate can be waged without the introduction of religion to the conversation. I'm just curious what your thoughts are. It's obviously your call as to whether you choose to answer the question.

I don’t want to muddy the water with religion when it’s not needed. However, my answer is that I don’t know when the soul is created. Only God knows that. I do believe that it exists prior to conception, however. Although, I don’t believe and I don’t think it’s logical to think that the soul can exist in the human being until there is a human being. When is it a human being? I don’t know that either and my point is that no one does. Therefore, in the absence of that proof, I think it is wrong to terminate what could possibly be another human being. Again, I’d like to keep this on topic and not get into the religious rut.

[HeatherB 0]

from m-w.com:

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
- hu·man·like /-m&n-"lIk/ adjective

(emphasis mine)

So, if you want to go by strict definitions, an infant isn't even human b/c it isn't bipedal yet??

Ok..joking aside...

I knew we'd end up debating when life begins, etc. That's fine and dandy.
Everyone seems to agree that conversations should take place between male/females regarding "what if you/I became pregnant." That's just common sense. (often not used though)

Morality aside, I think another one of the main issues is responsibility. It's where a lot of ppl differ. Some people think it is being respsonsible to not have sex when you aren't ready for the possibility of a child. Some think it's using protection. Some think it's having an abortion instead of bringing an unwanted child into the world. Some think it's going through with the pregnancy and giving the child up for adoption. Some think it's going through with the pregnancy and raising the child even though it was "unplanned."

What do you consider to be "taking responsibility?" Morality/Religion aside.

And you poor men. The only common form of birth control that you seem to have available to you is the condom, which has a typical failure rate of 14%.

I haven't heard much about the "male pill" lately. Anyone?

If someone thinks men are just "sperm donors" aren't women then just "egg donors" and "incubators?"

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

"It also affects the lining of the uterus so if the egg is fertilized it cannot attach to the wall of the uterus. "

Again, this is based on the type of pill, most do not have this affect. It is typically the higher dose of hormone pills that can do this (which is why am after works) and most docs prescribe as low a dose as possible due to side effects like stroke/death (this would be bad).

It's like saying seizure meds affect birth control. True, but only certain seizure meds with only certain versions of the pill, it's a liver metabolism thing. Sweeping generalizations are really only 1/4-1/2 true.

Please don't make me regurgitate my pharmacology classes either

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

I don’t want to muddy the water with religion when it’s not needed. However, my answer is that I don’t know when the soul is created. Only God knows that. I do believe that it exists prior to conception, however. Although, I don’t believe and I don’t think it’s logical to think that the soul can exist in the human being until there is a human being. When is it a human being? I don’t know that either and my point is that no one does. Therefore, in the absence of that proof, I think it is wrong to terminate what could possibly be another human being. Again, I’d like to keep this on topic and not get into the religious rut.

Well said. Though I have to disagree about the involvement of God and prefer 'sentience' to 'soul', but I absolutely agree with the point of this post. In the absense of scientific (or religious or whatever) evidence to pinpoint this exact moment, it is best to be conservative.

Damnit Paj, quit making me agree with you!

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[wmw999 2,589]

And I think here is where the two sides won't be able to convince each other, no matter how logical or brilliant the argument.

I do not believe that a just-fertilized egg is a human being. It should be treated with the same respect that we treat other life, but it's not a human being. Most women don't mourn when they have a period after having had sex during the fertile period on the off chance that there was a fertilized egg that didn't implant. Most men don't even want to think about that.

We use live, adult dogs for surgery experiments and training and then kill them. We use monkeys for research of various kinds.

Many of us kill kittens

And if that is a baby there on that pinhead, then what is it right to make the mother do, or prevent her from doing, to protect that life?

I made 50 skydives while I was pregnant with my son. I went on a roller coaster. I walked up and down stairs. I had the occasional glass of wine. I didn't attack people who smoked around me.

I lived my life. My first doctor disagreed with my definition of safe, so I changed doctors. I had that right. Where does the right end if the just-fertilized egg is a human being?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What do you consider to be "taking responsibility?" Morality/Religion aside.

Responsibility:
If you’re going to have sex, precautionary measures need to be in place to prevent pregnancy (unless you want one). If pregnancy occurs, it is the couple’s responsibility to take care of that new person (raise or put up for adoption). Even if they didn’t mean to get pregnant, are in a financial bind, live in a poor neighborhood, or might grow up with a deformity. Those reasons are completely beside the point when one is talking about another’s right to live. Those reasons and others don’t give us the right to kill what we’ve participated in creating. Of course, there are extreme and unavoidable exceptions.

Quote

If someone thinks men are just "sperm donors" aren't women then just "egg donors" and "incubators?"

I believe men are simply “sperm donors” and women “egg donors and incubators” unless there is some form of commitment in the relationship.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

What do you consider to be "taking responsibility?" Morality/Religion aside.

There is an old management joke, "You will be given all of the responsibility, but none of the decision-making authority."

Men don't actually have any part in the decision-making.

I also believe that "accidents" are rare. Just because someone "said" they were on the pill and using it carefully, does not mean that they were.

The easiest way to remedy this situation is to draw a legal line in the sand. Make a legal definition in which the parties agree to take on the responsibilities of their actions. Maybe this contract could be called... marriage.

Without the contract, it becomes like anything else, non-enforceable.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Damnit Paj, quit making me agree with you!

You love it!!!
Jay

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The easiest way to remedy this situation is to draw a legal line in the sand. Make a legal definition in which the parties agree to take on the responsibilities of their actions. Maybe this contract could be called... marriage.

Whooo....dude....that's deep!
What a concept!

[livendive 8]

Quote

My apologies. I didn’t mean to speak for you. So what’s your stance so we’ll have a frame of reference in this discussion? I think you know that of the ones who have been in this conversation for a while.

My stance is that it's an extremely complex issue. If we accept that the value of human life is the foundation of morality (i.e. that without humans, there can be no morality), we get into the question of when something becomes human life. All I can say with any real conviction is that sperm, eggs, and early stage conceptus bear little similarity to humans. Since we're discussing the morality of abortion, it might be reasonable to use morality as the frame of reference for what is human. From that perspective, a fetus is not human because it is amoral. However that view seems a bit shallow, at least as a stand-alone. When I think about the value of human life principle, I realize that I have to also consider *potential* human life because the principle basically hinges on the propagation of the species. Involuntarilty sterilizing every human on earth would be an immoral act of the highest magnitude, as it would violate the concept behind the value of human life principle as well as the value of individual freedom principle (i.e. removing everyone's freedom to reproduce). That said, it would seem illogical to extend the value of human life principle to include ALL potential human life, as such a perspective would suggest that it would be immoral for a woman to go through ovulation without at least trying to conceive, because she is denying her egg the chance to realize it's potential. Once again we get into the gray area. I can't say for sure when I consider something to be human enough to deserve consideration as a human, nor can I say how much potential something must have in order to warrant consideration as a potential human life. Given these uncertainties, I'm left with the impression that abortion is often used in a manner that I consider to be immoral, but that the method by which I've reached that conclusion is not well-enough developed or supported to impose it on others except in obvious cases (e.g. viable, healthy fetuses that pose no substantial risk to the mother).

Quote

I don’t want to muddy the water with religion when it’s not needed. However, my answer is that I don’t know when the soul is created. Only God knows that. I do believe that it exists prior to conception, however. Although, I don’t believe and I don’t think it’s logical to think that the soul can exist in the human being until there is a human being. When is it a human being? I don’t know that either and my point is that no one does. Therefore, in the absence of that proof, I think it is wrong to terminate what could possibly be another human being. Again, I’d like to keep this on topic and not get into the religious rut.

I don't personally believe that such a thing as a soul exists, and I think it's interesting that you believe it exists prior to conception. I guess I'll just drop it though. It sounds like you and I both recognize that there are questions surrounding conception and potential human life that we can't answer, we only differ in how confident we are in our conclusions. We agree that abortion is likely immoral in many cases, but I'm not confident enough in my conclusion to suggest others should accept it for themselves. You seem considerably more confident in your reasoning, in that you seem to be saying that because you have concluded that abortion is immoral, everyone else should too.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And you poor men. The only common form of birth control that you seem to have available to you is the condom, which has a typical failure rate of 14%.

That's a little misleading. That's the failure rate overall of people who only use condoms for birth control. It includes people who don't use them every time or from the beginning of sexual contact. The failure rate for proper use is 2%.

[livendive 8]

Quote

The failure rate for proper use is 2%.

Source? My experience with them (anecdotal, but all I have to go on) suggests a higher failure rate.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PhillyKev 0]

planned parenthood.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

The failure rate for proper use is 2%.

Source? My experience with them (anecdotal, but all I have to go on) suggests a higher failure rate.

I'd have to agree here, 2% is exceedingly low. I wonder what they used as a standard for 'correct use' and how realistic that standard is in the real world.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

The easiest way to remedy this situation is to draw a legal line in the sand. Make a legal definition in which the parties agree to take on the responsibilities of their actions. Maybe this contract could be called... marriage.

Without the contract, it becomes like anything else, non-enforceable.

so what happens when a legally bound couple has diametrically opposed views on this issue? How does this contract give the male anymore right to force the female's decision? The line certainly needs drawing, but it isn’t so much about who's responsibility it is, as it is at what point does the responsibility for such decision revert to the State? When in is it no longer a matter of two people's choices, but three people's lives?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm not talking about the condom breaking, I'm talking about avoiding pregnancy.

As to how realistic it is, it's as realistic as you want it to be. Either you choose to use a condom properly or you don't. That means every time, before initiating contact.

[Zenister 0]

i'd pretty much count any break as a failure, pregnancy or no...after the condom breaks its only luck that prevents pregnancy... (unless other measures have been taken)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I'm not talking about the condom breaking, I'm talking about avoiding pregnancy.

As to how realistic it is, it's as realistic as you want it to be. Either you choose to use a condom properly or you don't. That means every time, before initiating contact.

OK, we've clarified the statistic a bit. I thought you were talking about the failure rate of the condoms themselves, not the method of birth control as a whole. Condoms break a lot more frequently than 2% of the time, but these occurrences can be managed (or just lucky as to time of month) such that pregnancies are avoided.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

i'd pretty much count any break as a failure

Count it however you want. But the statistic I was quoting was "failure to prevent pregnancy"

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Without the contract, it becomes like anything else, non-enforceable.

so what happens when a legally bound couple has diametrically opposed views on this issue? How does this contract give the male anymore right to force the female's decision? The line certainly needs drawing, but it isn’t so much about who's responsibility it is, as it is at what point does the responsibility for such decision revert to the State? When in is it no longer a matter of two people's choices, but three people's lives?

A marriage contract does not add any "rights" of any sort to the man, just responsibilities. Legally, there are no advantages for a man to be married.

If a man doesn't agree (in writing) to the obligations of marriage, those responsibilities should not be enforced by courts.

Most of the basic definitions of marriage are gone anyway.

An unmarried woman gets pregnant, she has all the choices. She can also expect support which the man never implied by signing a marriage contract.

If they are married, he is financially responsible, even if the child is determined to not be his through DNA testing.

Palimony - no one signed a marriage agreement, but all the terms of marriage are now enforceable.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If they are married, he is financially responsible, even if the child is determined to not be his through DNA testing.

You sure about that? If that were true, then if a woman remarried the father wouldn't have to pay child support anymore since there is a new financially responsible party. But that's not the case.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

i'd pretty much count any break as a failure

Count it however you want. But the statistic I was quoting was "failure to prevent pregnancy"

if the condom breaks how exactly does that count as a successfully 'prevented pregnancy' on the part of the condom? there is no evidence that the condom was the reason pregnancy did not occur. If incidents of breakage are counted as 'preventions' because pregnancy did not result they are padding their statistics.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

You sure about that? If that were true, then if a woman remarried the father wouldn't have to pay child support anymore since there is a new financially responsible party. But that's not the case.

Child support remains the same, regardless of re-marriage. My ex re-married twice and I supported both those worthless SOBs along with her. (On the positive side, at least I'm not bitter.)

I have a friend who married a woman and adopted her kids. They got divorced and he continues to pay child support even though she is re-married.

Alimony stops if she re-marries, not child support.

[PhillyKev 0]

So are the results padded when someone on the pill doesn't get pregnant when they are not ovulating?

It's a straight up comparison. Number of pregnancies per 100 women based on birth control method used. For condoms, it is 2.

Unless you have some method to determine exactly when a woman is ovulating or not, tell me how better to gather the stats.

When talking about birth control, what difference does the condom breaking or not make? The issue is not getting pregnant.