Neohuman,
Yes, I would in fact agree. Given the following criteria:
The couple had agreed to have sex, use contraceptives and avoid a child.
The couple had previously discussed the options if pregnancy occurred and they decided to abort.
The pregnancy occurs (obviously!) and the woman then choses to have the child

Under these conditions, the man should not really be responsible for something beyond his control. Yes, the pregnancy occurred with his input but then if the situation were previously discussed and a change in heart occurred outside of his control, I cannot see how he is to be held to task. If not previously discussed, then I would submit that some responsibility is still retained – to what degree is what the courts are for, if required.

As to the rest of your thought argument:
I do not see the similarity in comparing an embryo/foetus with mentally impaired or elderly humans. Could you please elaborate on the correlation? On the face of it, I would say that there is a world of difference.

Timmy-boy,
You really need to start with some solid ground. Women’s Choice, women’s use of contraception and their not taking enough responsibility for use of contraception is not part of the debate as to whether abortion is right or wrong. They are issues dealing with pregnancy and the begetting of such (to turn a biblical phrase).

The argument regarding abortion is a simple one: when is an embryo/foetus/zygote a human who qualifies for protection from harm?

All the other issues, though relevant to social concerns, have no direct bearing on the issue of abortion. If you want to discuss these in a forum regarding the need for social responsibility, I’m sure we can do so. But with abortion, can you produce some facts regarding the status of the pre-birth life-form to justify forcing a woman to carry it to term please?

Thank You Reason for acknowledging the unfairness of the current setup, by in large the pro-Choice ignore this which undermines their credibility on fairness and equal consideration for the parties involves.Again I notice Di, Xena,and Col Rouge didn't have the honesty to commment on or acknowledge this.

As far as my argument is goes along similar lines of Peter Singer’s argument for rights for sentient animals. In this he points out personhood (cognition and self-awareness) which is often used as justification is not met by many members that we give equal moral consideration to in our social group i.e. infants, those with extreme mental handicaps and those elderly with severe impairments. He backs this up by pointing out if we in fact used personhood as a criteria we should be able to experiment & kill these human non-persons as we do non-humans. He argues since we experiment /kill higher primates who have personhood and not human non-persons we are being speciesist like a racist or sexist. He goes onto the use of sentience but you get the basics.

Now actually there is no argument that a zygote or fetus is human or homo sapien as they are at the earliest stage of a human/homo sapiens development(not as in just any cell sex or skin etc as they are part of a human and are genetically unique like a zygote)

What is often used is that the unborn are not human beings/persons, well borrowed from Singer’s argument it has already been pointed out that we give personhood rights to members of our community that are not or don’t have functional personhood status. So the thought experiment equally applies here, to be consistent we should be able to do to born non-persons that we do to un-born no-person humans.

It should also be pointed out again that if we use the ‘my body my right’ and non-person justification then there should be no late term limit and that we could kill ,experiment, and harvest body parts from late term anesthetized pre-borns. Imagine the uproar if this happened.

Neohuman – your suggestion regarding parental responsibility for financing the upkeep of children is incomparable to sharing of a single body’s resources.

Re mentally handicapped and elderly. These are again, non-comparisons.
“Autonomy” of the individual as defined by separation from other individuals denotes their difference from an embryo/foetus, which has not achieved autonomous existence (it is inseparable from the mother).

Regarding acts of assault – these concern s the actions of a third party, not the first party. Ethics panels preside over the interaction between two or more autonomous individuals – your suggestion fails.

“I have no shame”? – who on earth do you think you are? Please produce the authority you hold to make judgements of me?

I resent your statement. It could, however, be anticipated, it is based on a flawed and defective values set, like the rest of your misguided post.

Your last paragraph does not merit reading – certainly I will not dignify it with direct response.

Your later post “credibility / fairness” A complete and utter red-herring – accompanied by more judgemental and ignorant pronouncements.
The embryo and the mother are in an “unfair relationship”. Mother is an independent individual and the embryo is not. Your emotive claim to pro-choice “ignoring fairness” is deranged garbage and stands as another example of a “pontificating and judgemental attitude”.

Timkins
The fire, plane crash and bank robbery all involve interaction between separate and unique individuals.

The abortion issue concerns the interaction between the permanent occupier of a body and the temporary user of the same body. The comparison / analogies you suggest are flawed and thus invalid.

Peoples choices are their own and nothing I would wish to influence.
Thus I do not care about the popularity of contraceptives.
“Abortionists” provide a legally approved service – I might not like chiropractors, I know many doctors think they should be banned but I cannot get excited about that either.

The rate of unintended pregnancy, read above re contraception
such matters are private and personal choices which do not directly effect you and thus nothing you need concern yourself with.

Laurie,
You are correct in that the majority of abortions are occurring to unmarried younger women, and the idea that most abortions are because of rape, incest or deformed foetuses is a myth. The vast majority of abortions occur when the woman doesn’t use sufficient contraception, doesn’t want abstinence, doesn’t want sterilization, and doesn’t want to carry the baby to full term and adopt it out.

However if a woman does want to have 3 or more abortions, then I think she should present her reasons to a panel, (similar if she wants an abortion after 20 or more weeks of pregnancy), and I think that panel could recommend further counselling on contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption etc.

Di,
It appears you cannot make a post without name-calling, flaming or making irreverent comments about other posters (eg “golden showers”). If you don’t like statistics, then complain about the articles published on OLO, as the majority contain statistics.

Reason,
Thankyou for your name-calling (eg “boy” etc). However that isn’t “reasonable” debate.

I am aware that it is uncomfortable for some people to learn about the statistics and facts regards abortion, and they would be much happier using anecdotal evidence to justify the high rates of abortion, and they would be much happier if they could exclude males from abortion issues so males can be used as scapegoats, and they would be much happier disguising abortion in terms such as “women’s choice”.

Is the foetus human? Someone can be charged with “manslaughter” if they cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. But why “manslaughter”, why aren’t they charged with “causing a loss of cells” or something similar?

It appears that :-
- If the woman wants the baby, then the foetus is regarded as being human.
- If the woman doesn’t want the baby, then the foetus is not regarded as being human, (and it can be called a “bunch of cells” or a “pre-birth life form” etc).

This type of thinking would make it much easier to carry out an abortion with minimal conscience, ethics, responsibility or accountability.

Col Rouge -
>your suggestion regarding parental responsibility for financing the upkeep of children is incomparable to sharing of a single body’s resources.

Didn’t infer it, Reason had enough intelligence and honesty to acknowledge that for the parties involved overall, -even if the woman is granted sole right to decide if she keeps the child- are not given equal consideration. You want the woman to have the choice, but have no responsibility while forcing the man to both be responsible and have no say.

>Re mentally handicapped and elderly. These are again, non-comparisons.
“Autonomy” of the individual as defined by separation from other individuals denotes their difference from an embryo/fetus, which has not achieved autonomous existence (it is inseparable from the mother).

These like a fetus don’t have autonomy, in that they rely on care and are not capable of self preservation. Have another go.

>Regarding acts of assault – these concerns the actions of a third party, not the first party.

To you there are only two parties so you must to be consistent consider it ‘just’ assault. Pls answer the question.

>Ethics panels preside over the interaction between two or more autonomous individuals – your suggestion fails.

BS animals and the impaired are not considered autonomous nor can they represent themselves and is exactly the reason ethics panels are involved. Try again.

>Please produce the authority you hold to make judgements of me?

Any person who sees another being hypocritical in their arguments. Sure we all get heated and do the occasional flame but an individual how doesn’t acknowledge their own and then mouths vitriol and emotive put downs on others reeks of hypocrisy

>I resent your statement. It could, however, be anticipated, it is based on a flawed and defective values set, like the rest of your misguided post.

Well I would expect that from you your posts have had nothing of substance. I’ve disagreed with Duec and Reason but they have shown consideration and argument to back themselves up which is sorely lacking in your posts. If you couldn't flame you’d barely have anything to say.

Posted by Neohuman “If you couldn't flame you’d barely have anything to say. “ – an inflammatory remark if ever their were one

I am not flaming - I am quite sure if I were, the moderator would intercede but, rest assured, if I wanted to, you would be the first to feel the heat.

Now I have purposely avoided your futile efforts to inflame and dealt with you and your sanctimonious assertions appropriately.

I note "Neo" in front of "human" would suggest your name alludes to you being “new” and “different” or perhaps “new” and “abnormal”. I will assume the latter –

I suggest you take your "new human abnormalities" and find somewhere else to try to inflame people. Your sort of rhetoric leaves me with a sense that your views represent the usual half-baked “know how everyone else should be forced to live” rabid opinion normally associated with proponents of shari law and thus completely and utterly reprehensible.

Reality is this – no one is going to turn the clock back to the days when people were obliged to fall into line with your sort of thinking. I guess a few words describe it – “yesterdays paternalistic attitudes” – in ironic contrast to what you might claim your name represents.