So after pages of confusion and apparent denial, we're left back where started.
MY position has been consistent, so lay off the snide false accusations.
Your position may have been consistent, but so was your obfuscation. How many times did Fenring try and get you to explain the details? A heck of a lot. And you still wouldn't make it very clear because you only want to state the marketing side (that you are pro-woman) and not the practical specifics (that it's important that we retain a right to kill a fetus, irregardless of whether we could remove it safely alive).
It's not the man's body, thus not his call as to what it can or cannot be used for.
If your logic was restricted to control of the body, and not to control of reproduction this would follow, however, since you constructed this as an argument about two rights it doesn't provide for the man's equivalent right.
He can choose to walk away at any point, so already has the freedom to choose not to be a father without and need for medical facilitation. I've already made it clear that legal force should not be applied to him any more than is should be to her. (Once agreements that amount to a contract have been made, that changes, for sure, but that's out of context here)
Which is a position that I agree with, however, its not the current state of anyone's law. In fact, the law is extremely certain that it prefers the opposite result, with an absolutely binding financial liability imposed at the moment of conception.
And even if we dropped the financial element, it does nothing to address the presumed moral/ethical dilemma that you have created by taking away the man's decision about reproduction at a time when there is no borne person, but just a "part" of a woman that she can choose to use to take away his right to control his own reproduction.
It's not unreasonable to weigh the rights of a viable fetus versus the inconvenience or even risk to a woman and decide that past the point of viability we'd require an attempt to save the life of a fetus absent a compelling risk of physical harm to the mother.
It's entirely unreasonable, because it means violating control of her body in favor of the state dictating its use for the purposes of others. It's a lazy way of addressing the concern that actively communicates that women are less entitled to rights then men are.
Actually, you just making unsupported assertions now. It's completely reasonable, it may also be reasonable to hold the view you have depending on one's underlying assumptions. But there is no argument on earth that would make it unreasonable to argue in favor of saving a viable fetus where it can be done without material risk to a mother (I get some might also hold to the zero risk standard, though again its not unreasonable to require a minimal level of risk here). Of course, from your position, you'd also hold that we have to provide a termination style abortion, even if a live birth were
demonstrably safer, and there's really not a good reason for that to be the case.
By the way, by glossing over the man's right to control his own reproduction on the same terms as a women, you've already established that you think women should have greater rights over reproduction than men (not equal rights).
If you are really concerned about late term abortion then address the primary causes of it.
No. I'm not concerned about late term abortions. I'm concerned that killing a viable fetus is unjustifiable if it can be removed at low risk to the woman carrying it. I don't care why she wants it out, that's her decision not mine.
Ensure that sufficient funding for abortion is available so that women don't have to spend months coming up with enough to afford it, pushing them into the later term.
Out of curiosity, since you make this claim, what percentage of women desiring an abortion are turned away from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers because of a lack of ability to pay?
Ensure that men and women have access to several months worth of fully paid family leave and create the expectation that both will take it in the event of a birth or other family emergencies so that there's no excuse for suppressing the pay and employment opportunities of women based on the expectation that they'll be forced to take time out for child care.
Which, while a good idea to support young families, will make little actual difference as no child is raised in "several months," they take years. Women aren't lagging in pay because they give birth and are out for a few months, they lag in pay after they stay home for years getting kids from birth into school.
The list goes on. There are many, many things that can be done that have real effects on the frequency of need for late term abortion that justify themselves without regard to abortion and also involve protecting rights rather than using paternalistic restrictions at the very end of the game that actively infringe on the rights of women.
And since none of those things address the ethical issue they are all in the category of nice to have but irrelevant. And it's odd to me that you think these are "paternalistic" restrictions. At best these would be pro-human restrictions. It's really not in any way anti-woman to say you have every right to control your own body, but you don't have the right to kill people.
