Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Batman]

Actually a pretty damned large number of cells currently are, and have been in the past, human beings. What I think you mean is the mere number of cells isn't what makes them human beings, on which I agree with you 100 percent.
Yes, that was a nitpick. Who would have expected that from me.
As for the 'soul' issue, since there are religions believing a soul can be reincarnated into animals all the way down to insects, that presents some interesting philosophical problems for exterminators.

[Batman]

NO amount of cells is a human being.
Brain activity, self-awareness, sapience, consciousness - that's what makes a human being.

So someone in a coma is no longer a human being?

Last I checked people in a coma do have brain activity, they just don't react to outside stimuli. Note that Serafina never stipulated that all of those had to occur at once for a person to be considered human, else we would stop being human every time we fall asleep.

[Alyeska]

NO amount of cells is a human being.
Brain activity, self-awareness, sapience, consciousness - that's what makes a human being.

So someone in a coma is no longer a human being?

Last I checked people in a coma do have brain activity, they just don't react to outside stimuli. Note that Serafina never stipulated that all of those had to occur at once for a person to be considered human, else we would stop being human every time we fall asleep.

Last I checked, a fetus also has activity up there too. So its a bad argument.

[Torchship]

If a child is born, that child has an absolute right to be provided and cared for. The child may be raised--either by both parents or one with the other providing financial assistance. The child may be adopted out by mutual agreement. Or, in special cases, one parent may abnegate their parental responsibilities if the other parent marries and another individual is willing to step in and take their place by formally adopting the child.

Those are the options.

Well, no, they aren't. The idea of socialising the cost of maintaining under-funded children where a parent wishes to abrogate their responsibilities and rights associated with the child has already been broached in this thread, and I've yet to see a compelling counter-argument to it (if one has been given and I've missed it, please correct me). There is already precedent for this concept in the form of adoption; the government is perfectly willing to support a child if all parents do not want to take care of the child any more (and everyone agrees that this is a reasonable and legitimate thing for the government to do), so it does not at all seem unreasonable to extend this to the case where some parents want out and some don't.

If a child can receive adequate support whether all parents are involved financially or physically in its upbringing or not, then your counter-argument of "they must remain linked for the child's benefit" crumbles; there is no compelling reason to force all parents to be in any way associated with a child that they want nothing to do with.

Last I checked, a fetus also has activity up there too. So its a bad argument.

Serafina's statement makes significantly more sense if you substitute 'person' (a purely philosophical term with no rigorous definition) for 'human being' (a medical term with a well-defined meaning that Serafina's statement did not match). Of course, that also means that their private definition of 'person' is no more meaningful than anyone else's.

[Hillary]

No, actually it doesn't "really piss me off" when they say that because I understand that most of them actually and sincerely believe a smear of 4/8/12/whatever cells is a human being. I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, but especially in the case of those consistently pro-life (meaning against the death penalty as well as abortion) I can respect their position without agreeing with it.

Without wishing to derail the thread, I disagree entirely here. Pro-lifers don't believe embryos are human beings, not really. If offered the chance of saving 100 embryos or 1 3-month old baby, none of them would choose the embryos.

On topic, all the legal and fairness arguments are utterly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. It's your child, front up. Hey, it may be inconvenient and change your whole life and prospects for the worse - but then so can a lot of other shit that happens. I'm not getting into the whole 'don't have sex then' discussion, except to say that most activities in life come with an inherent risk attached to them. If you drive a car, you are taking the risk that it may fail in some way and cause you to have a life-changing accident. You can mitigate this to some extent- get it serviced regularly, wear a seat belt, drive sensibly, etc - but you can't eliminate it entirely. No one is saying you shouldn't drive or that you are asking for a crash if you do, but it's little use complaining that's its unfair for your brakes to fail when you've taken all precautions.

Certainly the downside of becoming a father unwillingly does not give a man the right to dictate that she has an abortion. Under no circumstances whatsoever. It also does not excuse him from having to support that child - whatever the circumstances of conception, the welfare of that child trumps all.

[Tiriol]

Certainly the downside of becoming a father unwillingly does not give a man the right to dictate that she has an abortion. Under no circumstances whatsoever. It also does not excuse him from having to support that child - whatever the circumstances of conception, the welfare of that child trumps all.

There already were listed some examples where a woman impregnated herself using an unwilling man in one way or another. Do you also support forcing that man who was raped/sexually used while underage/etc. to financially support the child he never wanted and was in all likelihood in no position to take precautions against having such a child?

[Terralthra]

If a child is born, that child has an absolute right to be provided and cared for. The child may be raised--either by both parents or one with the other providing financial assistance. The child may be adopted out by mutual agreement. Or, in special cases, one parent may abnegate their parental responsibilities if the other parent marries and another individual is willing to step in and take their place by formally adopting the child.

Those are the options.

Well, no, they aren't. The idea of socialising the cost of maintaining under-funded children where a parent wishes to abrogate their responsibilities and rights associated with the child has already been broached in this thread, and I've yet to see a compelling counter-argument to it (if one has been given and I've missed it, please correct me). There is already precedent for this concept in the form of adoption; the government is perfectly willing to support a child if all parents do not want to take care of the child any more (and everyone agrees that this is a reasonable and legitimate thing for the government to do), so it does not at all seem unreasonable to extend this to the case where some parents want out and some don't.

If a child can receive adequate support whether all parents are involved financially or physically in its upbringing or not, then your counter-argument of "they must remain linked for the child's benefit" crumbles; there is no compelling reason to force all parents to be in any way associated with a child that they want nothing to do with.

No, Torchship, you don't understand. If the mother doesn't want the child, she can abort, or give the child up for adoption. If the father doesn't want child, patriarchal bullshit demands he take responsibility and pay for it for 18-21 years.

[Broomstick]

Actually, in the US these days woman can NOT give the child up for adoption without also having the consent of the father. That particular option is not entirely under her control anymore. If the father takes the child the mother doesn't want then SHE can be on the hook for child support 18 years.

Pregnancy is the only time the woman decides with the man having no say.

[Terralthra]

Your information is incorrect. A mother wishing to put a child up for adoption may petition to have the father's parental rights to consent to an adoption waived. All that's required is for her to serve him with notice of the petition to waive their parental rights and the date of the hearing. If he fails to appear, or if she convinces a judge it's in the child's best interest, or if any number of certain steps are taken (not listing him as the father on the birth certificate, for example), then his right to consent to adoption is waived, in most cases without much of a chance to appeal.

See for reference California Family Code Section 7660.

[Torchship]

Actually, in the US these days woman can NOT give the child up for adoption without also having the consent of the father. That particular option is not entirely under her control anymore. If the father takes the child the mother doesn't want then SHE can be on the hook for child support 18 years.

Pregnancy is the only time the woman decides with the man having no say.

I wasn't speaking of one parent unilaterally giving up a child for adoption (which strikes me as intensely unethical in all but a few fringe scenarios, and I am vaguely concerned that you seem to speak positively of the concept. If I misread your tone, I apologise.), but rather drawing a comparison with a 'typical' adoptive scenario where both parents agree to give up the child to the government/some third party and abandon most or all of their rights and responsibilities to do with the child. In this case, the government/third party provides 100% of the care and upkeep that the child requires, and the child's biological parents provide 0%, and everyone agrees that this is a perfectly reasonable thing for both the government and the parents to do.

I simply proposed extending this concept to the case where one parent wants to maintain their rights and responsibilities associated with the child and one does not. In such a case, the government (or an interested third party, but probably the government) would step in to provide 50% (adjusted for income of the remaining parent) of the maintenance of the child, and the parent would provide the other 50% (and would still retain possession of the child and all their normal rights and responsibilties). This is exactly analogous to the 'typical' adoptive scenario I raised above, except that only one parent is disowning the child. However, one parent leaving vs. two does not strike me as a particularly fundamental difference and any counter-argument I can think of works just as well against adoption in general as it does this particular extension of the concept.

[Broomstick]

Terralthra, you miss my point. The woman alone can not put a child up for adoption. There is a legal process to go through, she has to convince a judge, etc. Unlike pregnancy where she and she alone makes the decision. That's a significant difference. Failure to follow the rules regarding adoption can carry legal penalties. A man who thinks a child is his can make a paternity claim and get involved in the process, unlike pregnancy where he really does have no say at all.

[Broomstick]

I wasn't speaking of one parent unilaterally giving up a child for adoption (which strikes me as intensely unethical in all but a few fringe scenarios, and I am vaguely concerned that you seem to speak positively of the concept. If I misread your tone, I apologise.),

I haven't decided whether or not such an ability to unilaterally surrender parental rights and responsibilities is a good thing.

Wait, correction - in an ideal world where such a surrender of parental claims was truly complete and irrevocable I could make an argument for it, but in the real world that's not what happens. Court cases can drag on for years after people change their minds and want backsies. I think it just complicates the issues even further.

[Broomstick]

And yes, it IS inconsistent - if you argue that a lump of a few cells already has a soul, shouldn't you also argue that as long as a few cells remain alive in a human body he's not dead yet, even if brain and heart have ceased to work? Or what about cancer cells outside of a human body - they also have human DNA and all, why wouldn't they have a soul? I could go on like this for a while - and it being so inconsistent is even more reason not to make policy based on it.

While it can be difficult to play devil's advocate for a position so far from one's own, I think the rationale for the difference is that a blastocyst (as an example) will become a full fledged human being in 9 months, whereas a severed finger (as an example) will not, it will simply die.

[Terralthra]

I wasn't speaking of one parent unilaterally giving up a child for adoption (which strikes me as intensely unethical in all but a few fringe scenarios, and I am vaguely concerned that you seem to speak positively of the concept. If I misread your tone, I apologise.),

I haven't decided whether or not such an ability to unilaterally surrender parental rights and responsibilities is a good thing.

Wait, correction - in an ideal world where such a surrender of parental claims was truly complete and irrevocable I could make an argument for it, but in the real world that's not what happens. Court cases can drag on for years after people change their minds and want backsies. I think it just complicates the issues even further.

As Torchship predicted, this argument that "unilaterally surrendering parental rights will sometimes lead to complicated court cases" is equally applicable to adoptions in general. Why is it ok for both parents to cede parental rights (despite the risk of complicated legal disputes), but not just one?

[Gaidin]

I haven't decided whether or not such an ability to unilaterally surrender parental rights and responsibilities is a good thing.

Wait, correction - in an ideal world where such a surrender of parental claims was truly complete and irrevocable I could make an argument for it, but in the real world that's not what happens. Court cases can drag on for years after people change their minds and want backsies. I think it just complicates the issues even further.

For a real life situation for you, one of my friends is raising a child solo. The other parent wanted no responsibility(was in another relationship) but was willing to provide financial support. My friend said the functional equivalent of, "No, you're either all in or all out because if I find a job that requires moving I want to hear nothing from you." Official paperwork came less than a week later saying they had no authority or responsibility in the raising of the child.

[Broomstick]

As Torchship predicted, this argument that "unilaterally surrendering parental rights will sometimes lead to complicated court cases" is equally applicable to adoptions in general.

Correct. Adoptions HAVE resulted in extremely ugly court cases. Why create a situation that leads to even more of them?

Why is it ok for both parents to cede parental rights (despite the risk of complicated legal disputes), but not just one?

Personally I could go for that IF the society I lived in actually gave a flying fuck about the half-orphaned child left behind by supporting the remaining parent but that's not the case. Such children will be at a marked disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

Sure, there are "half-orphaned" children produced when a parent dies, but again, why set up a situation that leads to even more of these?

[Terralthra]

As Torchship predicted, this argument that "unilaterally surrendering parental rights will sometimes lead to complicated court cases" is equally applicable to adoptions in general.

Correct. Adoptions HAVE resulted in extremely ugly court cases. Why create a situation that leads to even more of them?

For all the reasons previously stated in this thread about the manifest inequity of child support? I mean, have you been paying attention?

Both parents want child: both parents keep child.
Both parents don't want child (or mother doesn't want child and father doesn't fight sufficiently): child put up for adoption at no further expense to either.
One parent wants child, other parent does not: parent who does not want child pays 18-21+ years of child support.

Your counterargument is "but there will be ugly court cases"? There are already ugly court cases around adoption; that hasn't sufficed for a reason to remove the existing option to mutually consensually decline parentage. Why is it enough reason to prevent unilateral ceding of parentage?

Why is it ok for both parents to cede parental rights (despite the risk of complicated legal disputes), but not just one?

Personally I could go for that IF the society I lived in actually gave a flying fuck about the half-orphaned child left behind by supporting the remaining parent but that's not the case. Such children will be at a marked disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

Sure, there are "half-orphaned" children produced when a parent dies, but again, why set up a situation that leads to even more of these?

Talk about circularity. Want to re-read Torchship's post, wherein he proposes additional support from the state if the biological parent cedes their parental rights/responsibilities?

The idea of socialising the cost of maintaining under-funded children where a parent wishes to abrogate their responsibilities and rights associated with the child has already been broached in this thread, and I've yet to see a compelling counter-argument to it (if one has been given and I've missed it, please correct me). There is already precedent for this concept in the form of adoption; the government is perfectly willing to support a child if all parents do not want to take care of the child any more (and everyone agrees that this is a reasonable and legitimate thing for the government to do), so it does not at all seem unreasonable to extend this to the case where some parents want out and some don't.

You're essentially saying that your position is "society doesn't support kids with one parent enough, so I won't support your idea of the government supporting kids with one parent more." Um, ok...

[Broomstick]

Incorrect. I DO, in fact, support the government providing more support to single parents, that is exactly what I stated. However, I think in the current political climate getting the government to do so is impossible. if anything, support for parents (single or otherwise) is diminishing, not increasing.

In the real world it just ain't gonna happen in the US.

When solving social problems I am far more interested in what is actually doable than some idealized fantasy no matter how desirable that fantasy is.

This is just more asinine shitheads attempting to misread my position for their amusement, then quoting it back so distorted that it qualifies as outright lies. What else would you can characterizing my position 180 degrees from what it actually is?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, no, they aren't. The idea of socialising the cost of maintaining under-funded children where a parent wishes to abrogate their responsibilities and rights associated with the child has already been broached in this thread, and I've yet to see a compelling counter-argument to it (if one has been given and I've missed it, please correct me).

The mere fact that for the foreseeable future (at least in the US, which is primarily at issue here. Other more enlightened countries have better policies) it is not an option that is politically viable. I am referring to the options that exist at present. Of course, socializing such things would be infinitely preferable... but to say we ought do a thing, implies that we are actually capable of doing a thing.

There is also this:

Personally I could go for that IF the society I lived in actually gave a flying fuck about the half-orphaned child left behind by supporting the remaining parent but that's not the case. Such children will be at a marked disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

In this case, the problem is probably more social stigma than anything strictly speaking economic. The children of single parents are at social disadvantages in addition to economic ones. They are stigmatized, and have less time with their parents who have to support a household. Even with 50% support from the state that will still be the case. Divorce, death etc can create this situation, and are necessary/unavoidable occurrences. We acknowledge these as problems caused by death, or the solution to a much larger problem (the ability to divorce is itself a solution to situations that are in many cases worse than single parenthood). But why should we solve a relatively minor problem (addressing some perceived inequality in reproductive choice, one which is brought about by natural inequalities in stakeholdership and the assumption of risk), by causing a larger one?

Even if such a thing were to be passed, what sort of support could we meaningfully expect from the state? We already underfund every social program we have, particularly when governments go on Austerity binges.

[Singular Intellect]

NO amount of cells is a human being.
Brain activity, self-awareness, sapience, consciousness - that's what makes a human being.

So someone in a coma is no longer a human being?

Do they have brain activity? No brain activity is generally our definition of death via brain death.

***

With regards to the subject of pregnancy and choices people make, the result of pregnancy, whether deliberate or accidental, is brought about by a choice made by two people, end of discussion. It takes two people to make a pregnancy happen.

However.

Any finger pointing at men with regards to a child being born is ignoring the absolutely undeniable fact that choices do not end when pregnancy occurs. Only one person has the final say and choice on whether that pregnancy is carried to term. Therefore when a pregnancy is carried to term, there is only one person you can point a finger at as completely and fully responsible for that outcome. It isn't the man.

[Broomstick]

So someone in a coma is no longer a human being?

Do they have brain activity? No brain activity is generally our definition of death via brain death.

Yes, people in comas DO have brain activity. It's not the same as the brain activity of a fully conscious person, it's not a normal pattern, but "coma" does not equal "brain death". They are separate medical and legal states that are easily distinguished with the proper equipment, training, and knowledge.

Any finger pointing at men with regards to a child being born is ignoring the absolutely undeniable fact that choices do not end when pregnancy occurs. Only one person has the final say and choice on whether that pregnancy is carried to term. Therefore when a pregnancy is carried to term, there is only one person you can point a finger at as completely and fully responsible for that outcome. It isn't the man.

Incorrect. If a woman doesn't have the financial resources to pay for an abortion in many jurisdictions she doesn't get one no matter how much she wants one. Well, OK, maybe she can find someone to do an illegal abortion, but that also usually requires some sort of transaction.

If a woman finds out about her pregnancy past a certain point in time - because, as I keep telling ignorant young men a woman does NOT know the exact moment of conception - she can't get an abortion, either. My mother, for example, was on the pill and repeatedly assured by doctors she was NOT pregnant and wound up delivering a fourth-month-along miscarriage at home, a woman who had already borne three children and was practicing the most reliable birth control at the time. She didn't know. (allegedly, my parents saved the remains in a large mixing bowl and brought it to the doctor with demands for explanation). It really is possible for a woman to not know she's pregnant until the window for legal abortion has passed because that right is not unlimited.

Your position depends on absolutes that don't exist: that a woman knows immediately, or at least early on, that she is in fact pregnant. That is a false premise to hold for all instances.

[Singular Intellect]

Yes, people in comas DO have brain activity. It's not the same as the brain activity of a fully conscious person, it's not a normal pattern, but "coma" does not equal "brain death". They are separate medical and legal states that are easily distinguished with the proper equipment, training, and knowledge.

I was assuming Serafina meant no brain activity at all in this argument.

Any finger pointing at men with regards to a child being born is ignoring the absolutely undeniable fact that choices do not end when pregnancy occurs. Only one person has the final say and choice on whether that pregnancy is carried to term. Therefore when a pregnancy is carried to term, there is only one person you can point a finger at as completely and fully responsible for that outcome. It isn't the man.

Incorrect. If a woman doesn't have the financial resources to pay for an abortion in many jurisdictions she doesn't get one no matter how much she wants one. Well, OK, maybe she can find someone to do an illegal abortion, but that also usually requires some sort of transaction.

Which is a barbaric and retarded state of affairs, as a woman should always have that option. Ideally as a public service funded by everyone, or legal standards enforcing the man at least pays half of such an operation. I could even back an argument that if the woman cannot pay her share, the man should cough it up. Single abortion payment, or child support payments for the next eighteen years. Pick your poison, buddy.

If a woman finds out about her pregnancy past a certain point in time - because, as I keep telling ignorant young men a woman does NOT know the exact moment of conception - she can't get an abortion, either. My mother, for example, was on the pill and repeatedly assured by doctors she was NOT pregnant and wound up delivering a fourth-month-along miscarriage at home, a woman who had already borne three children and was practicing the most reliable birth control at the time. She didn't know. (allegedly, my parents saved the remains in a large mixing bowl and brought it to the doctor with demands for explanation). It really is possible for a woman to not know she's pregnant until the window for legal abortion has passed because that right is not unlimited.

Which do you think is the superior solution? Giving women greater abortion rights and choice or depriving men of theirs?

Your position depends on absolutes that don't exist: that a woman knows immediately, or at least early on, that she is in fact pregnant. That is a false premise to hold for all instances.

Which leads me right back to my above question. I personally favour greater abortion rights and choices for women along with superior technologies and tools at their disposal to determine and end pregnancies, but not taking choices away from men.

[Broomstick]

Yes, people in comas DO have brain activity. It's not the same as the brain activity of a fully conscious person, it's not a normal pattern, but "coma" does not equal "brain death". They are separate medical and legal states that are easily distinguished with the proper equipment, training, and knowledge.

I was assuming Serafina meant no brain activity at all in this argument.

I was assuming Serafina knew the difference between coma and brain death. What's your excuse for not knowing?

Incorrect. If a woman doesn't have the financial resources to pay for an abortion in many jurisdictions she doesn't get one no matter how much she wants one. Well, OK, maybe she can find someone to do an illegal abortion, but that also usually requires some sort of transaction.

Which is a barbaric and retarded state of affairs, as a woman should always have that option. Ideally as a public service funded by everyone, or legal standards enforcing the man at least pays half of such an operation. I could even back an argument that if the woman cannot pay her share, the man should cough it up. Single abortion payment, or child support payments for the next eighteen years. Pick your poison, buddy.

Why should a man be compelled to pay half the cost of a procedure he has no say in?

If you're going to have abortion be a public service "funded by everyone" then the proper mechanism for funding is taxation, not levying a fine on individuals. It's supposed to be a medical procedure, not a form of punishment.

Which do you think is the superior solution? Giving women greater abortion rights and choice or depriving men of theirs?

Until a cisman gets pregnant he doesn't posses any abortion rights, She who has the uterus makes the decision. Deal with it. It's biology. I'm sorry if reality is inconvenient but it's what you have to deal with.

Your position depends on absolutes that don't exist: that a woman knows immediately, or at least early on, that she is in fact pregnant. That is a false premise to hold for all instances.

Which leads me right back to my above question. I personally favour greater abortion rights and choices for women along with superior technologies and tools at their disposal to determine and end pregnancies, but not taking choices away from men.

You just don't get it.

A woman does not and can not know exactly when conception takes place. There is no 100% reliable means to determine conception has taken place. Women can continue to menstruate monthly during an entire pregnancy. Many women have irregular menses, to the point that even when they're not having sex with other people they may miss 2-3 months or more. My mother's pregnancy wasn't detected because by the time she convinced the doc to run the pregnancy test the fetus was already dead and didn't show up on the test (this was back in the 1960's before pee-sticks were invented). Modern "piss on this stick" methods don't always work, there is a failure rate with those, too.

What YOU are advocating, however, is that men be given the option of siring a child and then walking away without any responsibility towards that child. Why should he have the "right" to unilaterally walk away from a living, breathing, born child when the woman does not have that option?

[Singular Intellect]

I was assuming Serafina knew the difference between coma and brain death. What's your excuse for not knowing?

Serafina didn't bring up comas and neither did I, Alyeska did. She merely mentioned brain activity.

Why should a man be compelled to pay half the cost of a procedure he has no say in?

Because his personal choice to engage in sex resulted in pregnancy and he is on the hook for that. But he has zero choice on the issue of carrying to term.

If you're going to have abortion be a public service "funded by everyone" then the proper mechanism for funding is taxation, not levying a fine on individuals. It's supposed to be a medical procedure, not a form of punishment.

I agree, taxation would be the superior option. A man is half accountable for the result of pregnancy and therefore is logically half accountable for the costs of terminating it. He cannot be held accountable for a woman's choice to carry to term though, that is her choice, and hers alone.

Until a cisman gets pregnant he doesn't posses any abortion rights, She who has the uterus makes the decision. Deal with it. It's biology. I'm sorry if reality is inconvenient but it's what you have to deal with.

I don't understand, my entire position is built on this premise.

You just don't get it.

A woman does not and can not know exactly when conception takes place. There is no 100% reliable means to determine conception has taken place. Women can continue to menstruate monthly during an entire pregnancy. Many women have irregular menses, to the point that even when they're not having sex with other people they may miss 2-3 months or more. My mother's pregnancy wasn't detected because by the time she convinced the doc to run the pregnancy test the fetus was already dead and didn't show up on the test (this was back in the 1960's before pee-sticks were invented). Modern "piss on this stick" methods don't always work, there is a failure rate with those, too.

My argument is solely about carrying to term, not awareness of the precise point of conception which is irrelevant.

What YOU are advocating, however, is that men be given the option of siring a child and then walking away without any responsibility towards that child. Why should he have the "right" to unilaterally walk away from a living, breathing, born child when the woman does not have that option?

I have been arguing that women should have that right as well. Are you not reading my arguments? I cannot rationally argue for the position of men avoiding child responsibility without granting it to women as well. And I'm arguing this should be the case for both.

[Broomstick]

Why should a man be compelled to pay half the cost of a procedure he has no say in?

Because his personal choice to engage in sex resulted in pregnancy and he is on the hook for that. But he has zero choice on the issue of carrying to term.

No, I do not agree. It would be nice he he agreed to put towards the cost of either an abortion or pregnancy but I object to making it mandatory. I do not agree that a person should be compelled to pay for the decision of another person in that manner as he has no say in the matter.

If you're going to have abortion be a public service "funded by everyone" then the proper mechanism for funding is taxation, not levying a fine on individuals. It's supposed to be a medical procedure, not a form of punishment.

I agree, taxation would be the superior option. A man is half accountable for the result of pregnancy and therefore is logically half accountable for the costs of terminating it. He cannot be held accountable for a woman's choice to carry to term though, that is her choice, and hers alone.

By that reasoning a man should be compelled to pay for half the cost of carrying the fetus to term. Do you agree with that? Either way it's not his choice but you're demanding he pay for half of that not-his-choice. Otherwise you're providing a heavy incentive to abort accidental pregnancies which is a form of coercion. I'm not convinced that's in the best interests of anyone. As it is, an abortion is already at least an order of magnitude cheaper than pregnancy+delivery, already providing an economic incentive to abort. While I am pro-choice, I don't think promoting abortion as the preferred course of action is really something I want society to do. I want women to truly make their own choices and not be pressured into what someone else thinks is "correct".

My argument is solely about carrying to term, not awareness of the precise point of conception which is irrelevant.

My god are you stupid - of course knowing when conception took place is relevant because abortion is NOT an unlimited right! In the US they are only "freely" available (in truth, they cost money and often are not convenient to get) through the first trimester. If a woman isn't aware she's pregnant until 2 or 2.5 months along that leaves a VERY small window in which to obtain one, especially if she has to somehow scrape up the require funds to get one.

Of course, this is entirely in line with the rest of your ignorance about biology, whether it's reproductive issues or the difference between coma and brain death.

What YOU are advocating, however, is that men be given the option of siring a child and then walking away without any responsibility towards that child. Why should he have the "right" to unilaterally walk away from a living, breathing, born child when the woman does not have that option?

I have been arguing that women should have that right as well. Are you not reading my arguments? I cannot rationally argue for the position of men avoiding child responsibility without granting it to women as well. And I'm arguing this should be the case for both.

Well, there's a major problem - I don't think EITHER party should be able to walk away from producing another human being. At least, not without a lot of effort and hoop jumping. I don't want either men or women to be able to do that. Adults need to take responsibility for their offspring instead of (figuratively) simply abandoning them by the roadside.

You do realize we are talking about living, breathing, human beings here? Not wadded up kleenex or something - actual people.