Doc Holliday said:

---

---

General:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Specific:

A woman can't allow an adoption without the father's consent if the father is known.

Most feminists would want to change much of what you cited. For instance, conservatives can't argue against allowing women to serve in the military and then say "see how men are disadvantaged, they have to register to serve in the military and women don't."

As to rape and primary caregiver status, the law is generally gender blind. So that is a false comparison to a law (abortion law) that by definition applies to only one gender.

Final Evaluation:

Other than being wrong on the facts and logic, its an impressive effort. But maybe you should stick to memes.

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

We need solutions. We don't need "clump of cells v. baby murder" moralizing where choosing one side and demonizing the other has more value than do anything about it.

Solution>sides

---

I think the "clump of cells v baby murder" dichotomy mischaracterizes an argument that's much more complex.

Many who support a woman's right to choose don't hew to the "clump of cells" argument.

Some would not personally choose abortion or advise others to choose it.

They are, however, uncomfortable making the choice for others, and especially uncomfortable doing it with the force of law. And they're especially uncomfortable with forcing victims of rape and incest to bear the consequences of crimes against them. That's horrific and inhumane and depersonalizing.

Especially in a country founded on the separation of church and state.

And one where citizens, initially only men, were granted "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

Perhaps strict controls on abortion that disadvantage women are an originalist interpretation of that, since women couldn't vote, hold office or control property if they were married at that time. But that shows how originalism fails.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

General:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Specific:

A woman can't allow an adoption without the father's consent if the father is known.

Most feminists would want to change much of what you cited. For instance, conservatives can't argue against allowing women to serve in the military and then say "see how men are disadvantaged, they have to register to serve in the military and women don't."

As to rape and primary caregiver status, the law is generally gender blind. So that is a false comparison to a law (abortion law) that by definition applies to only one gender.

Final Evaluation:

Other than being wrong on the facts and logic, its an impressive effort. But maybe you should stick to memes.

---

100% complete bull***** But you already know that.

What does it feel like to be on the left today knowing your entire ideology is breaking down and falling apart?

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

The physical, emotional and financial burden of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption or child-rearing fall on women in a way that is wildly disproportionate to men.

If you want to reduce abortions, fix that problem. Far fewer women will want abortions.

---

It's largely because of abortion and contraception that men's share of the burden has been removed.

---

Abortion and contraception reduce the risk of burden on both the man and woman.

---

Burden and risk of burden are two different things. The risk may be reduced, but the burden itself is increased for women.

---

Contraception reduces the risk of being burdened with rearing a child or for some the burden of an abortion.

---

And increases the burden of rearing a child by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

How does contraception incrase the burden of rearing a child?

---

I think he said by making it less likely that men will participate.

---

Beat me to it.

---

Contraception, properly applied, solves 99.9% of the problem.

---

Only in the sense that you might "solve" the problem of unfair wages by never paying anyone. The problem cited by Booray was not the fact of pregnancy and child-rearing but the disproportionate burden placed on women.

---

All I'm saying is the practice of contraception would eliminate the vast majority of these unfortunate situations.

---

That was the theory. The actual results have been decidedly opposite.

---

Education and availability of contraception, plus requiring fathers to bear their share of the responsibility for rearing children would improve the current situation. Sterilization incentives might be another option for addressing some of the most egregious abuses of multiple preganancies while on government assistance.

---

"Education and availability" is wishful thinking. The reality is that contraception is available to anyone who wants it, and with the increase in availability has come a steady increase in single-parent families. There's no getting around the incentives created by the technology.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Education and availability of contraception, plus requiring fathers to bear their share of the responsibility for rearing children would improve the current situation. Sterilization incentives might be another option for addressing some of the most egregious abuses of multiple preganancies while on government assistance.

---

"Education and availability" is wishful thinking. The reality is that contraception is available to anyone who wants it, and with the increase in availability has come a steady increase in single-parent families. There's no getting around the incentives created by the technology.

---

Education can move beyond wishful thinking by eliminating "abstinence only" programs and remove their high failure rate.

Booray: "As to rape and primary caregiver status, the law is generally gender blind. So that is a false comparison to a law (abortion law) that by definition applies to only one gender. "

He was writing - accurately - about the social ignorance that men are victims of rape and abuse, that there is virtually no assistance for such male victims.

Don't write about someone not caring, then ignore the plight of thousands of male victims, just because their condition is inconvenient to your politics.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Education and availability of contraception, plus requiring fathers to bear their share of the responsibility for rearing children would improve the current situation. Sterilization incentives might be another option for addressing some of the most egregious abuses of multiple preganancies while on government assistance.

---

"Education and availability" is wishful thinking. The reality is that contraception is available to anyone who wants it, and with the increase in availability has come a steady increase in single-parent families. There's no getting around the incentives created by the technology.

---

Education can move beyond wishful thinking by eliminating "abstinence only" programs and remove their high failure rate.

---

You're a little behind the curve on that one. The new argument against funding "abstinence only" is that, okay, it is effective, but only when it's a Democratic idea.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception when they became pregnant. Pro-choicers will never agree to criminal charges in these circumstances, let alone severe ones.

ScruffyD said:

---

the alabama law makes it illegal to leave the state for an abortion.

---

That would be my only problem with their law. I do not understand why New York or California or Colorado legislators and political candidates give a damn what Alabama does with their own state laws. Leave them alone.
It's best left to the states who ultimately respond to their voters within their borders and that will settle local matters. States do have a right regardless of political candidates seeking publicity.

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

Prediction: Federal district court will find the Alabama law unconstitutional, as will the Fifth Circuit. S. Ct will deny cert. Roe stands but may be limited via a decision on another law (from another state).

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

I do not, however, think of a pre-viability fetus as a human. Therefore, I support the right to choose until that point.

---

There was a guy who didn't think of a certain ethnicity as human either, and he claimed the same right to end their life. I think he was from Europe.

---

If calling abortion murder doesn't shut down the discussion then break out the Hitler card.

Great ****ing job.

No lives were saved but by golly you established your ideological bone fides.

---

Hey, if the shoe fits.....

Foundational to the saving of lives of the unborn is recognizing the evil of killing them.

And I hardly would characterize being against the killing of unborn children as "ideological".

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception when they became pregnant. Pro-choicers will never agree to criminal charges in these circumstances, let alone severe ones.

---

On the same page you linked to, the Guttmacher report points out that contraception reduces the need for abortion signficantly. It also notes that 2 of the contraceptive methods women reported using that failed are condoms (which can break) and withdrawal, which is so notoriously unreliable I wouldn't consider it a contraceptive method. Another reason women who use contraception become pregnant is that women who seek long-term contraceptive methods--like having their tubes tied--have sex too soon after the procedure. You can supply people with reliable contraceptive, and we have lots of methods that are very effective. But you can't mandate common sense, following instructions after a surgical procedure, not thinking "withdrawal" is a reliable contraceptive method, etc.

Here's the excerpt:

Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 1544 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive usecontributed to the abortion decline.

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Perhaps on this site, where many posters fall into the minority of Americans who believe abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances, including rape and incest, and are distrustful of protections of the life of the mother.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Viability begins at conception.

---

Life begins at conception. Viability is related to survivability without a mother's life giving support.

---

Agree that life begins a conception.

But part ways with 'mother's life giving support' because of the reality that every baby requires life giving support for years. I don't understand why life giving support inside the womb and outside of the womb would be considered different.

Edmond Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Viability begins at conception.

---

Life begins at conception. Viability is related to survivability without a mother's life giving support.

---

Agree that life begins a conception.

But part ways with 'mother's life giving support' because of the reality that every baby requires life giving support for years. I don't understand why life giving support inside the womb and outside of the womb would be considered different.

---

Seems like the government doesn't count someone as human until they have assigned them a number (SSN).

One of the rubes legislators in Alabama said all the abortion stuff that doesn't involve the woman specifically, doesn't matter. Does this mean that instead of putting doctors away for 99 years, they should arrest women instead? If a woman hired someone to kill her baby outside of the womb, she would be charged with murder. Is this where we're headed?

cinque said:

---

If a woman hired someone to kill her baby outside of the womb, she would be charged with murder. Is this where we're headed?

---

Correct. If a woman kills her baby outside of the womb or hires someone to do it for her, she and the triggerman/ scalpelman should be charged with murder. Hopefully that is where we are headed.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception when they became pregnant. Pro-choicers will never agree to criminal charges in these circumstances, let alone severe ones.

---

On the same page you linked to, the Guttmacher report points out that contraception reduces the need for abortion signficantly. It also notes that 2 of the contraceptive methods women reported using that failed are condoms (which can break) and withdrawal, which is so notoriously unreliable I wouldn't consider it a contraceptive method. Another reason women who use contraception become pregnant is that women who seek long-term contraceptive methods--like having their tubes tied--have sex too soon after the procedure. You can supply people with reliable contraceptive, and we have lots of methods that are very effective. But you can't mandate common sense, following instructions after a surgical procedure, not thinking "withdrawal" is a reliable contraceptive method, etc.

Here's the excerpt:

Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 1544 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive usecontributed to the abortion decline.

---

They may be a small proportion of contraceptive users, but they're a large proportion of abortion cases. Would you accept a compromise that would deny them abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to their lives?

for the record, flaming lefty JR( as several here would say) is very pro life...evidenced by my adopted child (at birth). She is in college and pretty amazing. So, was her birth mother.

J.R. said:

---

for the record, flaming lefty JR( as several here would say) is very pro life...evidenced by my adopted child (at birth). She is in college and pretty amazing. So, was her birth mother.

---

That's awesome JR!

I plan on adopting at some point as well.

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

for the record, flaming lefty JR( as several here would say) is very pro life...evidenced by my adopted child (at birth). She is in college and pretty amazing. So, was her birth mother.

---

That's awesome JR!

I plan on adopting at some point as well.

---

Highly recommend. I have one adopted and one natural. Zero difference.

Ahhhh liberals - so kind and civil during debates these days.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of abortions are performed on women who were using contraception when they became pregnant. Pro-choicers will never agree to criminal charges in these circumstances, let alone severe ones.

---

On the same page you linked to, the Guttmacher report points out that contraception reduces the need for abortion signficantly. It also notes that 2 of the contraceptive methods women reported using that failed are condoms (which can break) and withdrawal, which is so notoriously unreliable I wouldn't consider it a contraceptive method. Another reason women who use contraception become pregnant is that women who seek long-term contraceptive methods--like having their tubes tied--have sex too soon after the procedure. You can supply people with reliable contraceptive, and we have lots of methods that are very effective. But you can't mandate common sense, following instructions after a surgical procedure, not thinking "withdrawal" is a reliable contraceptive method, etc.

Here's the excerpt:

Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 1544 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive usecontributed to the abortion decline.

---

They may be a small proportion of contraceptive users, but they're a large proportion of abortion cases. Would you accept a compromise that would deny them abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to their lives?

---

No, because I think this is a matter of personal autonomy and that objections to abortion are religiously based and not scientifically based.

I don't hold the religious belief that everything happens according to God's plan. And I really don't want to see that belief legislated to force women who don't want to be pregnant to bear children they don't want and can't support. The idea that victims of rape and incest and girls too young to safely give birth are included in that requirement is horrible and inhumane. It shows a level of casual and contemptuous cruelty that's frightening.

It's also abundantly clear that pro-lifers are pro-fetus-lifers. They tend to support the death penalty and not to support universal access to health services that isn't solely through E.R.s that are now vanishing from rural areas in states that didn't expand their Medicaid programs.

In a country where separation of church and state is a core value, the state should not be able to effectively commandeer women's wombs the instant an egg is fertilized.

It appears that people in Alabama, Missouri, Georgia and other states passing these very restrictive laws don't value separate of church and state. That's a dangerous stance given the terrible records of religiously based governments--Arab nations, Israel--relating to human rights, especially those of religious minorities.

What I am hoping will happen is that major employers will opt out of states that pass these restrictive bills and bills that undermine public health and public schools and move to states that don't. The market may ultiamtely have the last word on restrictions related to abortion, contraception and individual autonomy, which tend to be grouped with low support of public health access and public schools.

Has nothing to do with religion, TS stated correctly life begins at conception. I believe he is an atheist, if wrong I apologize to him, so that scientific fact has nothing to do with religion. The next argument then is viability.

Could a baby live outside the womb at an early stage of pregnancy, of course not, that isn't really the issue though. A 2 month old could not make a go of it either without continual 100% care. So that should not determine humanity.

Not sure why so many things are mis-attribute to religion.

Either a human being has a right to life or they don't. The fact that their journey of life is 4 weeks post conception or 100 years post birth, should have no bearing on that given right.

The killing of a human being in embryo form, is still killing a human being.

MoneyBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Republican men with anti-abortion agendas have long taken a perverse kind of pleasure in their illiteracy on the very topics they harp on the most. They love to talk about the sanctity of motherhood and the milestones of fetal development; Chambliss, for instance, wore a pin on Tuesday night that he claimed was the size of a fetus's feet after 10 weeks of pregnancy. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of biology that medical professionals, insurance companies, and patients will have to parse to determine what reproductive health care is legal and when, they plead ignorance.

This is not a strictly Alabamian phenomenon. Consider the comments of Ohio state Rep. John Becker, a Republican who proposed a bill that would curb insurance coverage of all abortion care provided under non-life-threatening circumstances. When journalists and health care practitioners noted that the bill would also ban coverage of contraception devices, including certain IUDs, that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs, Becker seemed exasperated. "That's clearly not my area of expertise," he said. He then suggested that pharmaceutical companies could simply "reformulate" their contraceptives to work differently, somehow, to comply with his legislation. That legislation, by the way, included an exception to allow insurance coverage of a medical procedure Becker appears to have invented out of whole cloth. Under Becker's bill, if a woman experiences an ectopic pregnancya life-threatening event wherein a fertilized egg attaches somewhere other than inside the uterusinsurance companies would be permitted to cover a procedure to "reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman's uterus." That procedure does not exist."
The Slate
Stupid and ignorant men making laws about women's bodies is ludicrous.

---

Just an FYI, he's a politician not a physician. His gender has very little to do with what he knows about women's health since about 1/5 OBs is male.

So men shouldn't get a vote on abortion? You know with regard to these aborted pregnancies: men contribute to 100% of conceptions and are the end result of 50% of the pregnancies, right? That's not to mention how many men support the children they father whether in the home or not.

My wife did an amazing thing carrying our 2 kids for 9 months...but I helped conceive them and I'll provide the majority of the financial support they will need for the next 18-25 years. You better believe I get a vote here.

And the cherry on top: a female governor signed the Alabama bill so that kinda blows up this argument too...

---

FYI female governor is immaterial with a veto over ride. And "No men don't get a vote. It ain't their body or business. They should have thought that before they had sex."
So he's not a physician? He's ignorant and stupid about sexuality. One doesn't need to be a banker to vote on a banking billl. That's stupid line of reasoning

Forest Bueller said:

---

Has nothing to do with religion, TS stated correctly life begins at conception. I believe he is an atheist, if wrong I apologize to him, so that scientific fact has nothing to do with religion. The next argument then is viability.

Could a baby live outside the womb at an early stage of pregnancy, of course not, that isn't really the issue though. A 2 month old could not make a go of it either without continual 100% care. So that should not determine humanity.

Not sure why so many things are mis-attribute to religion.

Either a human being has a right to life or they don't. The fact that their journey of life is 4 weeks post conception or 100 years post birth, should have no bearing on that given right.

The killing of a human being in embryo form, is still killing a human being.

---

A human HAS a right to life. After birth.

Before birth, the mother is the only legal entity (although the law gets muddy when a pregnant woman loses her baby as a result of a crime). That's how things should remain.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Has nothing to do with religion, TS stated correctly life begins at conception. I believe he is an atheist, if wrong I apologize to him, so that scientific fact has nothing to do with religion. The next argument then is viability.

Could a baby live outside the womb at an early stage of pregnancy, of course not, that isn't really the issue though. A 2 month old could not make a go of it either without continual 100% care. So that should not determine humanity.

Not sure why so many things are mis-attribute to religion.

Either a human being has a right to life or they don't. The fact that their journey of life is 4 weeks post conception or 100 years post birth, should have no bearing on that given right.

The killing of a human being in embryo form, is still killing a human being.

---

A human HAS a right to life. After birth.

Before birth, the mother is the only legal entity (although the law gets muddy when a pregnant woman loses her baby as a result of a crime). That's how things should remain.

---

That's not currently the law.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray: "As to rape and primary caregiver status, the law is generally gender blind. So that is a false comparison to a law (abortion law) that by definition applies to only one gender. "

He was writing - accurately - about the social ignorance that men are victims of rape and abuse, that there is virtually no assistance for such male victims.

Don't write about someone not caring, then ignore the plight of thousands of male victims, just because their condition is inconvenient to your politics.

---

Where did I say he didn't care?

As usual Doc's post has no logical connection to the argument. The point he is trying to dispute is mine: that abortion laws are unfair in part because those laws force one gender to bear a disproportionate share of the burden associated with pregnancy, birth and child raising.

The portion of the response you are trying to defend is that men and women assault and rape victims are treated differently.

I responded that this is a discussion about what the law should be. Because-as Doc admits-the laws around rape and assault do no not distinguish between men and women, it is not the law that causes disproportionate treatment of male rape/assault victims.

Thus, abortion law causes disproportionate result.

Rape/assault law does not cause disproportionate result.

Its not that hard to understand.

"The distinction in ethical value between existing persons and potential future persons has been questioned.[47] Subsequently, it has been argued that contraception and even the decision not to procreate at all could be regarded as immoral on a similar basis as abortion.[48] Subsequently, any marker of the beginning of human personhood doesn't necessarily mark where it is ethically right or wrong to assist or intervene. In a consequentialistic point of view, an assisting or intervening action may be regarded as basically equivalent whether it is performed before, during or after the creation of a human being, because the end result would basically be the same, that is, the existence or non-existence of that human being. In a view holding value in bringing potential persons into existence, it has been argued to be justified to perform abortion of an unintended pregnancy in favor for conceiving a new child later in better conditions." Mary Warren and Savulescu, J (2002). "Abortion, embryo destruction and the future of value argument". J Med Ethics. 28 (3): 133135.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Count me in on the free birth control.

Does that include providing contraception to minors without parental consent?

---

I'd be willing to allow it beginning at age 16 if that also means severe criminal charges for doctors who perform abortions outside of the law.

---

Pretty soon we are going to have a consensus bill.

---

Even though such a consensus would mean overturning Roe?

---

That is a good question. As you have seen, most of my argument against abortion restriction is based on the disproportionate burden placed on women by pregnancies and childbirth. On the other hand, everyone should recognize that abortion is a poor result that we should do everything possible to avoid.

I assume that contraception is going to continue to improve. If one is educated enough and contraception works well enough, at some point that burden becomes so voluntary that it can't support my argument. If you couple free contraception with other social programs designed to protect women after the birth (paid maternity leave/means tested subsidized daycare) I think I could be convinced that outside of rape/incest/serious risk cases, abortion should be outlawed.

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

Consequentialism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequence, not by whether it follows a set of written edicts or laws. One example would entail lying under the threat of government punishment to save an innocent person's life, even though it is illegal to lie under oath. Wiki.
By this ethical thinking failure to procreate by a man would mean he is denying the right to life of a potential human being. That is a form of abortion.