-->
@3RU7AL
That doesn’t look like what I wrote in my first few responses in this thread, where I detailed those differences. So, yes, I guess you haven’t found them yet.
Abortion Double Standard
Posts
Total:
206
-->
@whiteflame
NOT giving money to some chick you had mutually consensual intercourse with
hold on a second,
isn't it illegal to pay for sex ?
-->
@whiteflame
That doesn’t look like what I wrote in my first few responses in this thread, where I detailed those differences. So, yes, I guess you haven’t found them yet.
perfect
"go back and read my perfect argument"
would you care to at least provide a link ?
-->
@3RU7AL
Not sure why you quoted yourself but responded to me. Also not sure what this has to do with my argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
I’m working. Feel free to read back through the thread.
-->
@3RU7AL
it's not "nonsense"it's factand, clearly, any woman who would intentionally murder (or infanticide) their own infanthas some sort of "mental disorder"
Pretending murdering a child is always murder - is false. Mothers can, do and have gone to prison for murdering their babies in circumstances that fall outside that covered by infanticide.
The continued nonsense, falsehood and at this point, bordering on pathologically so: is the seeming belief that all child murders legally qualify as infanticide.
They don’t. Stop pretending they do.
-->
@whiteflame
Not sure why you quoted yourself but responded to me. Also not sure what this has to do with my argument.
because the quote is from my the previous response to you
and i thought it might be interesting to hear your opinion on the matter
-->
@Ramshutu
is the seeming belief that all child murders legally qualify as infanticide.
i never made this claim
i said that if the mother of a child kills her own child
within the first 12 month of it being born
is NOT murder
and furthermore, they rarely get any serious jail time (at least in canada)
-->
@whiteflame
I’m working. Feel free to read back through the thread.That's an odd comparison. No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive. If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do. I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father. Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.
is this your perfect argument that clearly shows the moral distinction between a woman choosing to abdicate their "responsibility" and a man choosing to abdicate their much smaller "responsibility" ?
-->
@Bones
Pro choicers are likely being intellectually dishonest when arguing pro choice views. They pretend it is about bodily autonomy, but the hypocrisy you point out proves it isn't.
I believe they just think society is better off when poor kids are murdered before being born. Margaret Sanger pretty much was open about it
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn’t say my argument was perfect. I said that I had explained my position earlier. Good of you to find it. What’s your response?
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is
No, it doesn't follow. A man's bodily integrity isn't in question during pregnancy.
-->
@3RU7AL
i never made this claimi said that if the mother of a child kills her own childwithin the first 12 month of it being bornis NOT murderand furthermore, they rarely get any serious jail time (at least in canada)
You keep saying it, but that’s not true.
Sometimes it’s murder - sometimes it’s infanticide. It depends on the specific circumstances. Which is the point I’m making - and you don’t appear to grasp.
Mothers can be, and are charged and convicted of murdering their new borns in Canada and serve jail time (see teenie Rosie steer, Georgina Anne Lowe, Sarah Leung - all charged with murder, all got hefty prison sentences). Other mothers - who can be shown to satisfy specific criteria - are charged with and convicted of infanticide - and also go to prison for it (see Shannon Dawn Rayner for an example), many are charged, convicted but don’t go to prison for it.
When you say
Is not murder
This is absolutely and categorically false. the reality is:
Is not, in every case, murder
There is a huge world of difference. Which you don’t appear to appreciate.
-->
@whiteflame
That's an odd comparison.
ok
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.
Some states, like Missouri, allow parents to abandon a child anytime before the child turns 45 days old. If the child is older than 45 days, but less than one year, parents may use the safe haven law as an affirmative defense against criminal charges of abandonment and child endangerment. [**]
If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do.
please explain why you think this is comparable
I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father.
except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does not
Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.
exactly
ending and or refusing to pay child support is LESS morally repugnant than killing a fetus
-->
@Ramshutu
Sometimes it’s murder - sometimes it’s infanticide.
“In Canada, a mother can kill her baby with the mens rea (a legal term for guilty mind) required for murder and escape conviction for murder, as long as there is some evidence that her mind was disturbed as a result of giving birth or lactation,” according to arguments filed by Alberta’s attorney general, in which it asks the top court to clarify the legal standard for infanticide in the hearing on Jan. 20.
The word “some” is italicized, as if to emphasize that, in practice, it really just means “any” evidence for a mental disturbance, “however slight.” As a result, Alberta argues, a law that was originally created to spare vulnerable young women from the gallows has become a “blanket” excuse for killer mothers, “regardless of their true moral blameworthiness.” [**]
and look,
i'm just as shocked and outraged as you (apparently) are about this
don't think that simply because i am presenting facts that you can imagine that i'm personally advocating for this
i am not
-->
@3RU7AL
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.Some states, like Missouri, allow parents to abandon a child anytime before the child turns 45 days old. If the child is older than 45 days, but less than one year, parents may use the safe haven law as an affirmative defense against criminal charges of abandonment and child endangerment. [**]
Seems quite a bit more complicated than arguing that a mother should be able to abandon her child wholesale, though point taken that there are some people who argue for this narrow window.
If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do.please explain why you think this is comparable
Because it would then take place within the same timeframe and represent a commitment on the part of the father to the unborn during pregnancy.
I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father.except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does not
Not responsive to my point, though I'll note that if the mother "opts out" then the father automatically does, whereas the father's decision actively harms the mother's position should she choose not to opt out.
Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.exactlyending and or refusing to pay child support is LESS morally repugnant than killing a fetus
I disagree, and I'll note that now you're getting into issues of morality and the basis for determining whether abortion itself is morally reprehensible, which falls outside of this discussion. You agree that this is a valid distinction, yet you do not agree that that makes the comparison between these burdens problematic. Why not?
-->
@whiteflame
If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do.please explain why you think this is comparableBecause it would then take place within the same timeframe and represent a commitment on the part of the father to the unborn during pregnancy.
symmetry would only demand that the father EITHER accept OR reject the (financial) responsibility within the same timeframe as the mother
-->
@whiteflame
except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does notNot responsive to my point, though I'll note that if the mother "opts out" then the father automatically does, whereas the father's decision actively harms the mother's position should she choose not to opt out.
we agree the father does NOT have a choice
we agree that the mother DOES have a choice
-->
@whiteflame
ending and or refusing to pay child support is LESS morally repugnant than killing a fetusI disagree,
ok
and I'll note that now you're getting into issues of morality and the basis for determining whether abortion itself is morally reprehensible,
only because you've given ZERO reason to support the claim that a father should be coerced by the state to basically pay "restitution" for a "non crime"
the only conceivable reason for this would be because you imagine a father is somehow MORALLY OBLIGATED
please offer your rational alternative to this morality hypothesis, if you have one
which falls outside of this discussion.
so sez u
You agree that this is a valid distinction,
i agree that it is a distinction, but one that does NOT support your claim
yet you do not agree that that makes the comparison between these burdens problematic. Why not?
the physical and moral and financial burden on the mother is MUCH higher and yet, you still give the mother a choice to "opt out"
the physical and moral and financial burden on the father is much LOWER and yet, you give them NO choice
lower stakes should allow for GREATER discretion (not less)
-->
@3RU7AL
except that the mother has the ability to "opt out" and the father apparently does not
Every father ever has 'opted out' of being pregnant.
we agree the father does NOT have a choice
*Does not have a choice to opt in or out....
-->
@3RU7AL
What you said was:
i said that if the mother of a child kills her own childwithin the first 12 month of it being bornis NOT murder
This is false.
Canadian mothers who have killed their newborns have been and are prosecuted and convicted for murder. And sent to prison.
Other Canadian mothers who have killed their newborns have been prosecuted for infanticide have been sent to prison.
Other Canadian mothers have been prosecuted and not sent to prison
Your characterization of Canadian law - that a parent killing a child is not murder - is flat out false - refuted by both the law and the facts.
You’re argument now appears to be that you agree with the province arguing for clarification of the law - that the lack of a formal standard makes it easier to acquit women of murder. That’s a completely different argument.
I won’t necessarily disagree that the law could use clarification: but that doesn’t make any of your characterization of the application of the law valid - because it clearly isn’t.
-->
@3RU7AL
symmetry would only demand that the father EITHER accept OR reject the (financial) responsibility within the same timeframe as the mother
Except that the father doesn’t currently have any obligation during that time frame. That’s my point.
we agree the father does NOT have a choicewe agree that the mother DOES have a choice
Again, not responsive to my point, but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to address it.
only because you've given ZERO reason to support the claim that a father should be coerced by the state to basically pay "restitution" for a "non crime"
Not so. I argued that the reason is the survival of the child and, for that matter, a balancing of obligations. It strikes me as odd that both you and Bones have argued this perspective of the need for symmetry, but then argue against symmetry when it comes to obligations. That’s part of the problem here: you get an asymmetry regardless. Granting the father the choice gives him equal choice to the mother, but both deprives the child should they have it (of both a father and financial support) and places the entire burden of support on the mother. That’s not symmetrical.
the physical and moral and financial burden on the mother is MUCH higher and yet, you still give the mother a choice to "opt out"the physical and moral and financial burden on the father is much LOWER and yet, you give them NO choicelower stakes should allow for GREATER discretion (not less)
Again, assumptive of moral harm. Financial and physical burdens I agree with, but that sets the burden on her higher than on the father, so yes, the option to opt out is more important to them. The lack of such an option affects them far more than it does the father. If you want to argue that the lower burden on the father somehow should yield a similar conclusion, I’d like to know why.
What you’re doing here instead is focusing on the unborn, which is fine, but invites an entirely different discussion surrounding how much the choices of the unborn should factor into it. We’re talking about the decisions of the parents and how it affects them. That’s the line in the sand that you and Bones have drawn because that’s the line that says there is a double standard. You’re using the pro-choice argument against itself, not mixing it with the pro-life point and making an entirely separate argument.
-->
@Ramshutu
I won’t necessarily disagree that the law could use clarification: but that doesn’t make any of your characterization of the application of the law valid - because it clearly isn’t.
so, are you trying to say that you think that a perfectly sane and mentally stable mother can intentionally kill her own child within the first 12 months ?
-->
@whiteflame
symmetry would only demand that the father EITHER accept OR reject the (financial) responsibility within the same timeframe as the motherExcept that the father doesn’t currently have any obligation during that time frame. That’s my point.
in exactly the same way, the burden on the mother is rather small in the first three months
the option to choose abortion is in ANTICIPATION of GREATER BURDEN in the FUTURE
-->
@whiteflame
we agree the father does NOT have a choicewe agree that the mother DOES have a choiceAgain, not responsive to my point, but it’s pretty clear you don’t want to address it.
you have not made "your point" clear
i can't even steel-man your position, because i have no idea what "your point" is
-->
@whiteflame
only because you've given ZERO reason to support the claim that a father should be coerced by the state to basically pay "restitution" for a "non crime"Not so. I argued that the reason is the survival of the child and, for that matter, a balancing of obligations. It strikes me as odd that both you and Bones have argued this perspective of the need for symmetry, but then argue against symmetry when it comes to obligations.
if the mother chooses to "opt in" then they have some obligation, unless at some point, they choose to "opt out" by leaving the child at a designated "safe haven"
if the father chooses to "opt in" then they have some obligation, unless at some point, they choose to "opt out" by leaving the child at a designated "safe haven"
seems pretty symmetrical
-->
@whiteflame
That’s part of the problem here: you get an asymmetry regardless. Granting the father the choice gives him equal choice to the mother, but both deprives the child should they have it (of both a father and financial support) and places the entire burden of support on the mother. That’s not symmetrical.
the "entire burden" is something the mother can "opt out" of
the mother is never FORCED to care for the prospective citizen
-->
@whiteflame
Again, assumptive of moral harm. Financial and physical burdens I agree with, but that sets the burden on her higher than on the father, so yes, the option to opt out is more important to them. The lack of such an option affects them far more than it does the father. If you want to argue that the lower burden on the father somehow should yield a similar conclusion, I’d like to know why.
for example
if i know someone who requires dialysis or some other critical medical treatment
and they live alone, with no neighbors or friends or even a telephone
and i have agreed to transport them to their life-saving medical treatment on a pre-arranged schedule
before i agree, i am under no legal or moral obligation to help this person
THE STAKES ARE HIGH because they will likely die if i fail to meet my AGREED UPON obligation
on the other hand
if i know someone who requires dialysis or some other critical medical treatment
and they do NOT live alone and they have many neighbors and friends and DOES have a telephone
and i have agreed to transport them to their life-saving medical treatment on a pre-arranged schedule
before i agree, i am under no legal or moral obligation to help this person
THE STAKES ARE MUCH LOWER because they will very likely be able to make alternative transportation arrangements if i fail to meet my AGREED UPON obligation
in the first case, my failure is basically tantamount to murder
in the second case, my failure is simply an inconvenience (not murder)
LOWER STAKES = MORE FREEDOM
-->
@whiteflame
not mixing it with the pro-life point and making an entirely separate argument.
hold on
if you want a "pro-life" argument then
the mother has no choice
and
the father has no choice
that's symmetrical
-->
@3RU7AL
so, are you trying to say that you think that a perfectly sane and mentally stable mother can intentionally kill her ownchild within the first 12 months ?
If you re-read my posts, my argument is clear:
- There is a clear legal distinction between murder, manslaughter and infanticide - contrary to your assertions otherwise
- Prosecutions and jail time for women, in Canada for murdering their babies, and substantial jail time for infanticide back this up - contrary to your assertions otherwise.
- that the application of the law would treat someone who simply decides to kill their child on a whim as murder - not infanticide, because it doesn’t meet the criteria laid out. Contrary to assertions otherwise
I’m taking specific issue with your specious characterization of a law based on bizarre hypothetical scenarios upon which you apply wild hyperbolae: that are at clear odds both with what the law actually says, and actual instances of how the law is actually applied.