Why are you pro choice or pro life?

Even if you think the mother deserves the final say, surely you would admit the father has an interest in the matter?

ETA: And I think you are saying the state has no place in enforcing moral codes. If you reject that premise, it follows that the state has an interest as well.


A person is a being with plans. With hopes, aspirations and goals. Killing a person means that they are not able to work towards those objectives.

A fetus has no plans, it has no expectation of even living another day, hour, or second. If it dies, then it just stops being, just as it was not being a short time ago.

I described my thought process in post #24 up thread.

Preventing a birth is not an isolated event hanging only by a single moral thread. Child birth is not the purpose or result of most sexual coupling by humans. All births that are frustrated or terminated have exactly the same result. They deprive a human of the potential to exist.

So, abortion is not the moral issue of killing a person. Preventing a person is not the same as killing one. An embryo is not a person. It’s removal is not murder.

I do not have moral certainty of the kind you imply. I simply do not consider it to be a moral issue.

Basically, I agree with what you have said. My wife always said that she, personally, could never have chosen an abortion, but strongly supports that other women should have the choice, however they made it.

I was looking at a photo of a Paralympian swimmer born with no legs and wondered how we would have chosen had an ultrasound shown that. I truly don’t know. It would help if society were more supportive, but it strikes me that it is the pro-lifers who would object to that.

Gosh. What in the world would you consider a moral issue?

Sure, the father can have an opinion. I would even say that they are the only person who has a right to express that opinion unsolicited.

But their contribution to the situation was having an orgasm, not exactly the same sort of burden as carrying a baby to term.

Depends on exactly what you mean by moral codes, but for the most part, no, the state should not be enforcing such things.

If I just don’t like what someone else is doing, but what they are doing is not doing me any potential harm, then I don’t think that I should have standing to demand that they stop. That’s what I think of as moral codes, if you have a different definition that covers slavery and child molestation, then that’s because you chose that definition.

You’ve now changed your ETA to not make much sense.

Yes, exactly.

The problem I have is with people who seem to think “If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it, but don’t tell other people what to do” is a valid argument for the pro-choice position, when really it’s begging the question of “which kind of wrong” it is.

I find this kind of commonly dismissive attitude towards the kind of investment required of the father deeply troubling. More often than not, there was a dinner involved.

That is not relevant and is off topic.

Your post implies certainty that abortion is somehow a moral issue.

How so?

Eh, if that was the only contribution I would show the father the door.

My general point is that your argument, here

relies on the hidden premise that the only person who is in a position to make a decision about abortion is the person who is carrying the fetus.

So what you have written boils down to, ‘I am pro-choice because I think the only person who is in a position to make a decision about abortion is the person who is carrying the fetus’. A tautology, considering that is the definition of pro-choice.


To the pregnancy, that is the only contribution. What else do you think happens when babbies are made?

It’s not a hidden premise. It was quite overt, I said that very specifically.

And so I agree with the definition of pro-choice. I’m not really following what point you think you are making here.

In a world where we boycott Nestle bottled water, surely most everything has a moral dimension. I consider most everything a moral issue. Don’t you?

Is that boycott something that people have chosen to do on their own, or something that has the force of law behind it?

I suspect you know the answer to that. Boycotting a product or risking taking a life are both moral decisions. Most decisions have a moral side to them.

The man’s interest does not over-ride the woman’s choice and her agency over her own body.

OK - then let us proceed on that premise:

Preventing the development of a potential human being is a moral issue

Is it absolute and universal or circumstantial?

It is not. There are a number of things a father or anybody really can do to help a mother manage her pregnancy. IMO the more a person does, the more invested they are in the pregnancy even though they aren’t the one physically carrying the fetus. The more invested they are, the more they stand to lose if the pregnancy is terminated. The more they stand to lose, the more relevance their opinion has at least under a harm-avoidance analysis (which I suspect you use).

@Broomstick: I’m not arguing that the father’s investment outweighs the mother’s rights with this line of discussion, which began “Even if you think the mother deserves the final say […]”. I am responding to k9bfriender who seemed to argue that nobody else’s opinion was even relevant.

The topic is, why are you pro-choice, not merely are you pro-choice. So I’m trying to learn why you think the only person whose opinion on an abortion is relevant is the person carrying the fetus.

I suspect you are using a harm-avoidance analysis (utilitarian nonmaleficence). Assuming the unborn is incapable of being harmed, the mother probably stands to suffer the most harm if she is forced to carry her pregnancy to term. Therefore the decision is hers.

But I don’t generally like putting words in other people’s mouths, you might have your own rationale.


This definition would imply that babies are not persons. Maybe toddlers too. Also anyone in a persistent vegetative state. Is that actually your opinion?

You forgot to mention deadbeats.


Not exactly. ‘Moral’ is the judgement of right from wrong. There is a neutral zone between them.

I am not a member of the Pro-Life movement because of their attacks on pregnant women. It is wrong of them to intimidate women who are experiencing the stress of pregnancy along with the stress of ending it. No one has the right to shout at and shame a person seeking an abortion. That is slander and intimidation, not free speech. It is wrong for the state to require a woman to see the shape of the embryo on ultrasound before it is removed. That is state sponsored torture. The Pro-Life movement is immoral.

Abortion is in the moral neutral zone between right and wrong. It is a medical procedure not a religious ritual. The decision to have children is a matter for a parent or parents. It is a based on personal responsibility. The decision not to have a child has the same result regardless of the method employed.