By “want”, I was referring to the final decision in light of any doubts or moral opposition. Your group #4 is therefore a combination of my groups #2 and #3 - the mother’s desire not to have a child is outweighed by her desire not to have an abortion.
I’m not concerned with whether she wants the child because she’s lonely, because she wants to pass her genes and knowledge on to the future, or because she’s morally opposed to her other options. The end result is that she chooses to raise a child, even though she could have chosen not to.
Saying she has “little choice” is misleading: she has the same choices as any other woman. I may be morally opposed to paying income taxes; that doesn’t mean I have “little choice” but to go to jail for tax evasion, it just means I’m going to have to choose between my morals and my freedom.
Better than men, who can just be thrown into the fire at the mother’s whim.
So, let me get this straight. The man wants to “take the relationship to a deeper level”. Presumably, because he deeply cares and feels connected to this woman. Right? Are we so far on the same page here?
So, this man who deeply cares and feels connected to this woman, so much so that he wants to take their relationship to a deeper level, is also saying to her (in essence), “Honey, I deeply care for you and feel connected to you, but if I knock you up, you’re on your own. Either suck the kid out before it’s born, or pay for its support yourself. I’m outta here.”
Oh yeah. He cares. So deeply.
Let’s add a little wrinkle to this one—it’s an imperfect analogy, but there’s a point buried in there somewhere. Let’s say you get into an accident, something minor. So, this other person does some superficial damage to your car. Nothing that prevents it from functioning, but a dent or something. And let’s say that you have a choice, you can get it fixed, or not. So, I guess the person that hit you shouldn’t have to pay for what they did to your car, huh? I mean, it still works, and you don’t HAVE to get it fixed. So, if you decide not to get it fixed, there is no reason why the insurance company give you any money. You are really not entitled to any money.
See, it doesn’t work like that. The laws don’t allow that. The person who did the damage still has to pay for what they did. To say, “Well, it didn’t really do that much harm, and look, the person isn’t even bothering to fix it anyway” isn’t going to cut it. You must be responsible for your actions, no matter what the other person chooses to do on their end.
Yes, I know this analogy is imperfect, but I guess my point is, you still must be responsible for what you do.
OH PLEASE. I’m cryin’ over here. A “fine”? That’s what you call it? A “fine” is a fee that is demanded as a form of punishment. What a man pays when he fathers a child is for the support of that child. He is not being punished for a misdeed. He is PAYING to SUPPORT A HUMAN BEING THAT HE HELPED CREATE. That is not a “fine”. You act as if it is an arbitrary amount meant to “teach him a lesson”. No, it’s to pay for shoes, food, and dental bills.
Oh my gosh. And what a cakewalk that all sounds like, for the woman, huh? But oh yeah. Her life is so consequence free. Just punch her in the stomach, and get rid of that kid. La de dah.
You’re breakin’ my heart here. “Expected”? You know what a woman really expects? A man to be a man—not a selfish male.
So do it. Get the damned vasectomy.
This is insane. So, you don’t want to get a vasectomy, because, “just in case” someone asks a favor of you, (because your sperm is so special and all) and wants your sperm. Sounds like that is a long shot. But if, just in case someone needs your sperm (and only your sperm will do) just freeze it and get the damned vasectomy. Or if the sperm is somehow spoiled, so what? What are the real odds that someone will really want it?
I am not following this logic at all. So, you think that in the future, someone may want you to donate your sperm to them (because you don’t want kids yourself, but they want your sperm, so you’re doing them a favor) but they don’t want your stored sperm, they want it from “the source”. So, because this mythical person that you have not encountered yet may sometime in the future expect you to donate your sperm to them (from the source will only do) so you are holding out getting a vasectomy? So you are not having sex, because you are afraid that you won’t be able to donate sperm to some imaginary person who might want it down the line? And you are afraid that they won’t accept your frozen sperm? Could this BE more insane and inane?
Well, if that is your reason for not getting a vasectomy, and therefore you are whining about how lonely you are, 'cause you can’t have sex…well, all I can say is you get what you deserve. You are tormenting yourself too much over this. Or really, what I think is that you don’t want the damned vasectomy, and are straining to find excuses not to have one. But you are afraid to have kids, so you are afraid to have sex. Can’t have it all your way, fella. Your choice. Have a sex-free life then.
Sorry to inform you, but most laws have something to do with morality. Just because you think that morality shouldn’t have anything to do with it doesn’t mean that you are right, or that it will happen that way.
You know what? A fetus has no rights. And know what else? A fetus is a good source of protein. Let’s put aborted fetuses on the menu at Jack in the Box. Let’s grind 'em up and make 'em into hamburger. Let’s do that. There’s no harm in that, is there? No one is being damaged, so no one’s rights are being damaged if they are fed aborted fetuses. It will make no one sick. It’s just good protein! I assume you have no problem with that. I assume you’d be opposed to any law that would prevent aborted fetuses being ground up into hamburger. I assume you wouldn’t mind being (possibly unknowingly) fed that for dinner. It won’t hurt you. And laws shouldn’t be about morality, so there should be NOTHING stopping anyone from doing that. And you know what else? Let’s not put dead people in the ground, let’s grind 'em up too. I’m sure they are an excellent source of protein as well. So, I supposed you’d oppose any law that prevented grinding up dead people as meat? Because the only reason that any law exists to prevent that is that people find it MORALLY wrong. That’s the only reason.
Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation;
Is significantly different from the surrounding environment.
(Definition from this site.)
That’s what I’ve always based my opinion on - that an embryo and early-stage foetus does not respond to stimuli, and it is not significantly different from the mother. I’m very aware that there is much debate on when the embryo does start responding to stimuli, but in a search I couldn’t find any hard data. Pro-life sites state that the embryo does respond to stimuli, but they don’t give any proof of this or links to scientific articles.
Until the foetus is ‘viable’, from about 23 weeks (possibly down to 21 with the aid of advanced technology, but that is extremely rare), the foetus is dependent on its host parent for all of its life systems. It could not exist independently (and, unlike plant parasites, it couldn’t transfer to another host). Thus it can be said to not be significantly different from the surrounding environment - although this is a very sticky point.
My opinion isn’t hard and fast, it’s just a working definition when considering abortion and miscarriage, and what has actually ‘died.’ Of course, most women will feel as though they’re carrying a life-form as soon as they know they’re pregnant, but * for me*, when considering the morality or otherwise of abortion, it’s useful to have a rough idea of when the foetus is actually alive.
Lightning
Er, zero, because I was talking about pregnancy, not abortion, since your comparison was about a pregnancy that goes to term. You said that (in your analogy) the man could force the woman to continue bearing the child ‘except … in cases where the mother’s health is endangered.’ My point was that the mother’s health is always endangered. So if you make exceptions for this forced pregnancy when the mother’s health is endangered, then you must make ‘exceptions’ for every pregnancy.
This is one of many sites with information on pregnancy complications:
There should be an option for men to opt out of parental rights and obligations in cases where there is no prexisting ‘comittment’ or long term relationship. But what about the poor mother?! Well firstly women need to learn to be responcible for their own bodies, ie contraception. women who are pro abortion understand this and that is why they demand they have a choice. Secondly in a fair Egalitarian Democracy (And there are none, not even the all-mighty U.S.) the government must be ultamately responcible for providing to people roughly equal oppotunity. This means if a child is parentless, abused or one parent short the government offers support, just as it should offer support to a child who has been ‘aborted’ or divorsed by it’s father.
If we consider the differences between men and woman to be inequalities then society must compensate for the many choices to do with fertility mothers have by providing choices to fathers just as women in the work place are offered materity pay and such to allow them to reproduce and have a carreer.
PS~ Only a fool would mistake a man’s love for a woman with some silent permission magically transmitted to the woman saying, “Now we have achieved this closeness and caring for one another why don’t you quit your job and start breeding, no need to plan family, after all if a man dares the express his love sexually for a woman he must be taking advantage of an innocent and willing to accept responcibility for biological processes of anothers body.” Obiviously there are some huge contraditions in arguements that a man cannot under any circumstance NOT be responcible for his partners reproductive processes.
Thanks for the cite. (Note to other readers, there is an “n” missing from the URL…correct link here ) Those criteria listed seem like a reasonable place to start.
**
Well of course, you didn’t bother to provide a cite for that claim (which is what I had asked you to do).
How about I provide another cite? This one is from the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.
(Of course I previously provided Senate testimony asserting the same thing from numerous biologists and geneticists)
**
Cite, please? Wrong again. The z/e/f has a genetic makeup that is completely distinct from the host mother. Cites here (at bottom of page)
**
Well of course, you didn’t provide a cite to the contrary. Still. But what the heck, here’s another cite that discusses observable responses to stimuli. Keep in mind that your initial definition of life stated that " It is difficult to know what kinds of stimuli a candidate organism might respond to, making it almost impossible to find and recognize a response. "
**
Still no cites for the last claim either. I’ve already provided cites that point to the unique genetic makeup of the z/e/f. Dependence on a host for nutrition etc does not eliminate that “uniqueness”.
**
Well according to the all of the cites I have provided, including the Senate testimony from leading biologists and geneticists (you did look at that web site…right?), the z/e/f is a new human life at fertilization. (Of course for puposes of discussion of elective abortion…we really don’t even need to discuss the zygote stage of life). Your claim that a zygote and embryo is not alive is so silly that not even most pro choice folks make that claim.
Beagledave - no, I did not look at the cites you originally provided, because they were underlined words that looked like they had been underlined for emphasis, and I didn’t realise they were links. In your last post, you yourself underlined words that weren’t links as well as words that were. If the reason for this seems to be emphasis, as it did in your original post, how am I supposed to know it’s a link? I guess you should be clearer, and I should scroll over every underlined word in case it is a link.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, and when you stated that ‘people like Queen Al don’t believe a a zygote is even alive’ (my emphasis), I merely provided the reasons behind my ‘belief’ that a zygote isn’t alive, mainly because I wanted to make it clear that I do think a late-stage foetus is alive. This is more a philosophical claim than a scientific one, though it does have some - arguable - science behind it.
I’m not dictating scientific policy, I’m making a personal moral judgment about whether (for me) an embryo is as alive as a foetus or adult human, and the difference that makes to abortion. Do I need to have a cite for every single facet of everything I believe?
No, I didn’t provide a cite, and I said so:
And your response?
[cite]Well of course, you didn’t provide a cite to the contrary.[/cite]
No - isn’t it clear that I looked for one and didn’t find one? Almost all the sites that came up were pro-life sites (the rest were vague and not useful either way). Why are you accusing me of something I’ve already admitted to? What’s your point? Besides, I was explaining my reasoning - ‘if this is true then this is also true’ - surely my reasoning alone is proof of my reasoning, it doesn’t always have to have some call to authority?
Based on some (not all) of the evidence you have provided, I am going to have to rethink my position on the living/non-living status of an embryo. This is an opinion I formed many years ago, based on articles I read then which stated that embryos do not respond to stimuli (no, I don’t have a cite!). It seems there has been a change in the medical opinion since then. Especially if the last link you provided is true, and even a sperm is considered a form of life! I would NEVER have called sperm living beings! My opinion is always subject to change, and who knows, it may well change, or it may remain the same but with a more concrete foundation.
However, if you want to keep on discussing this topic, I suggest you start a new thread, since it’s already a major hijack in this one.
My apologies for any link confusion. The type of linking I did was the sort that I’ve seen used often in GD and other forums…but sorry if it caused confusion.
**
While notions like “personhood” or “citizenship” may be philosophical ones, the notion of what constitutes a new unique life is a biological/genetic concept.
**
If you’re making a science based claim… (remember that your original quote that I responded to was “* biologically and legally, no, it is not life, at least in the early stages” ), then yeah I’m going to hold you accountable to a science based defense of same.
**
Your initial assertion that I repeated above was a call to science. I pointed out that your science was flawed (gave you several cites to illustrate those flaws) and asked for cites from you to support your assertion that “biologically, the fetus is not alive until 23 weeks or so”. You did respond with a cite that contained a definition of life, so I thought you were trying to support your claim. By pointing out that you lacked a cite that excluded a zygote/embryo as a life form, I was pointing out that you had not done what I asked you to do…that is to back up a claim based in science, with a scientific cite
**
You seem to be confused by the last link I provided. While sperm (or oocytes) are living cells , they are not a new unique human being themselves. For further clarification of this point, try this link again. (the section at the top…Basic Embryological Facts)
I’m not confused about the last link. I said that a sperm is considered a form of life, I never said it was considered a unique human being. This is what the pertinent site stated:
I do find it rather unbelievable that a spermatazoa is a form of life, and if it is, it must be within an unworkably broad definition of life.
Sorry then…maybe it’s a matter of semantics. Or maybe with the heat and humidity…I’m the confused one.
For example, I can scrap off a cheek cell (or find a blood cell) and throw it under a microscope. For a short period of time, that cell will still be “living”…perhaps moving etc.
For purposes of discussing abortion, mere “posession of life” doesn’t qualify though. A zygote is a new, unique (different from the host mother) life.
And as pld suggested, it’s a “human” life in the genetic and biological sense that the mom is not going to birth a lemur in 9 months.
Perhaps that last web site is kind of sloppy in the way it lays out the beliefs of pro choice and pro life folks. I wasn’t trying to use it as a medical refernce, but rather just an illustration of what pro choice and pro life folks seem to agree or disagree on. However, using the phrase “is a form of life” repeatedly could suggest that all of the items that fall under the “is a form of life” rubric are similar…when of course they ain’t.
I’ve gotten to the point that I normally ignore your holier-than-thou, sarcasm-dripping, self-indulgent posts, but this one begs for a response.
And that response is: You must be joking.
Evidently, you’re unaware that a mother may remarry a millionaire, hit the lottery, become CEO of General Motors, and inherit the Getty fortune, but dear old dad is still required to pay child support.
Furthermore, there are absolutely no requirements whatsoever that mom justify how the money she receives for support are spent. Surely you would grant that not all moms are living hand-to-mouth and barely scraping up enough money for Pampers. Many, many moms are doing just fine, thanks, and the child support is just enough to cover the Lexus payment.
My point is…unless and until both parties’ total household incomes (including subsequent husbands, wives, and children) are taken into account, then child support is, in those instances, nothing but a “fatherhood fine.”
I think it is just semantics, really (in the spermatozoa issue, at least). The last site you cited, which is very informative, lays it out thus:
To a layman like myself, a ‘life form’ (the term used in the other article) has to be an actual form, rather than part of one. A skin cell or sperm cell dies within seconds or a couple of hours outside the human body, doesn’t it? But perhaps the time issue isn’t important. The same article states that ‘They [germ cells] do not direct their own growth and development.’ To me, that would mean they weren’t life forms. They don’t ‘Show evidence of growth and replication,’ as in the specifications of life I listed above. It seems odd to me that the same article can make that statement and then be adamant that germ cells are alive. But it probably is just semantics in the end.
Here’s a thought. Don’t want kids? Don’t want a vasectomy? Use condoms, spermicide, and another form of birth control (pills, implant, shots, whatever) of the woman’s choice besides. All the time, every time. Plenty of committed couples who are child-free by choice use this option. It works. The more kinds of BC being used at once, the less chance of baby making three.
What offends me most about the whole idea is that the male involved could basically do what he wants, secure in the knowledge that well, shoot, she can just have an abortion - and if she doesn’t want one, tough shit. It doesn’t just negate his responsibility after the fact. Placing full resonsibility for the child’s existence on the woman because abortion is an option also negates the father’s responsibility before the fact. It doesn’t matter, for instance, if he used a condom that had been sitting in his glove compartment since 1986 - it was still entirely her decision not to risk infection, complications, physician incompetence (and possibly the wrath of God) not to end the pregnacy he helped start. He doesn’t have to be sexually responsible, because it won’t be his problem anyway.
Here’s a thought. Let’s make this male abortion thing legal - as long as the father agrees to have the inside of his urethra scraped, suctioned and possibly made to bleed a lot every time he takes advantage of this new right.
And let’s not forget the anti-urethra-scraping picketers he’ll have to go past to get the procedure done, and the possibilty that the urethra-scraping clinic might get bombed, (and possibly the fear that he’ll go to hell for getting his urethra scraped…)
Rysdad, just FYI, stating who is on your ignore list is a bannable offense. In any case, I’ll ask my mother, who by court order is paying my father back for a great deal of misappropriated and misused child support, what she thinks of your argument. (Hint: It’s wrong.)
The fact that he cares does not mean that he is willing to have the relationship change entirely. If the women came home one day with a new personality and behaved differently from the way she always used to, he may conclude that the two of them are no longer compatible enough to be together. The fact that he liked her old behavior does not mean that he gets along with her new behavior.
If I give the person permission to bump his car into my car, then he most certainly should not have to pay for any damage that results.
He can pay for shoes, food, and dental bills of his own free will. When the government steps in and takes your money away, I call it stealing (and I consider income tax to be stealing as well). My own judgment will work just fine when determining what my child needs.
I am not going to claim that abortion is easy, only that injustice caused by the government is not acceptable. If I am struck by lightning, I have no one to complain to. When the government uses a complex machine to strike me with lightning, that is unjust. I am only arguing that the government should stay out of our lives, especially when their rulings are not balanced between the individuals involved.
All right, apparently I was not clear. At some point in my life I may conclude that it is better to be unhappy and with the person I love than unhappy and alone. If I arrive at this conclusion I will willingly have children with my significant other (this is based on the assumption that she wants children and would leave me if I was unwilling). This is not an unlikely occurrence as it has happened to me before. The #1 irreconcilable difference I have had with most of the women I have dated is that I do not want children and they do. If I choose to give in at some point, I will need to be able to reproduce.
Everything in life has consequences. Your comment about my tormenting myself too much over this is indeed accurate. I am an extremely responsible person, which is why I have gone to such extremes to avoid children. My complaint is that the government is making it worse and doing so in an unfair manner. Let’s say the government actually did what I requested and left me alone. I still would not have sex with anyone without at least 2 forms of birth control and without her assurance that she would not keep the child if she were to become pregnant. Those actions are enough for me not to feel responsible if a baby is born (I would still be responsible for conception however and would support her financially and emotional during the abortion process). There is the chance however, that she will change her mind once she becomes pregnant. It is commonly accepted that hormonal changes make it far harder on a woman to have an abortion then she ever thought it would be before she became pregnant. If this occurs, I am currently forced to pay child support, even though, in my eyes anyway, I am not responsible for the birth of the child as I got her assurance that she would not keep the child (and I would not have consented otherwise). If the government did not force me to pay child support, I would still help to support the child, but only as I saw fit. I would spend the money myself rather than giving it to her to do with as she pleases and, if she were exceedingly wealthy like the example that started this whole thread, I may choose to contribute nothing at all. I can make my own decisions and do not appreciate the government’s interference.
You are correct. I do not have a problem with any of that except for the part about not telling people what they are eating. Cooking vegetables in pig fat and then feeding them to vegans without letting them know that they were cooked in pig fat is certainly a questionable activity. Feeding people other people would fall under the same category. I can accept that some people are not comfortable eating people or fetuses (and that there is also a potential problem of spreading diseases if the meat is not cooked enough), but I see no reason why a law should prevent people from doing so, as long as we do not have people stealing bodies for the purpose of making food. If the “owner” of the body (which is usually the family) decides to use it to make food, I do not see a problem with that (other than perhaps a moral one, but that is no reason for a law).
Different people have different morals. To claim that one person’s morals are “right” and another’s are “wrong” and therefore unlawful is unconstitutional under the 9th amendment (unless the “wrong” moral is violating the rights of others).
I am going to shoot for another analogy on this issue. Let us say that you live in a neighborhood with absolutely no homeless people. The city fathers are very proud of this fact and work hard to keep their city free of the homeless. One day you meet a man and strike up a conversation. The conversation goes on for hours and you eventually get to talking about the local cities. You tell him about your neighborhood. You inform him of how nice it is and how great a place it is to live in. One day in the future an 8 year-old boy is found sleeping in a park in your neighborhood. The city government questions the boy and the boy informs them that his father told him it was a nice place to live and that he should take up residence in the park. When asked how the father found out about the park, the boy tells them that you told the father. The city government concludes that you are now responsible for the boy’s well-being in addition to the father.
The father is the only one that should be responsible for the well-being of the child in this case, not you. It is true that the child never would have been told to live in the park if you had not told the father about how nice a place it was. That does not change the fact however that the father’s telling the kid to live in the park is the final action and therefore, the only important one. If you choose to help the child because you feel morally obligated or just because you see that the child could use your help, then that is fine. But for the government to force you to help the child is totally inappropriate.
But there’s always some chance, even if it’s a small chance, that birth control will fail. This thread is about what to do in that situation.
That doesn’t seem any more offensive than “he can just pay to raise the kid - and if he doesn’t want one, tough shit.”
The man’s responsibility is for the pregnancy, not the child. He has no control over whether the pregnancy leads to a child; therefore, if the woman chooses to have a child, she’s the one responsible for raising it. He’s responsible for helping with some solution to the pregnancy, but why should he have to pay to raise a child when there are options that require far fewer resources?
If you hit someone’s car and ruin the fender, are you obligated to pay for a $2000 custom-made fiberglass panel if that’s what the owner prefers, or are you only obligated to replace the original $100 part?
And since women live longer on average, let’s force all women to smoke so they don’t live as long. Let’s shorten men’s legs with surgery so they won’t be taller than women. Let’s shave older women’s heads so they have to deal with “female pattern baldness” just like men. :rolleyes:
There will always be biological differences between men and women. Women are the ones who get pregnant, and whether they give birth or have an abortion, it’s not pleasant. Nature ain’t fair, but that’s no reason for laws to be unfair.
My apologies. I was speaking figuratively in the sense that I don’t have PLD on some sort of “automatic ignore.” (Obviously, I didn’t, or I wouldn’t have seen his post.) Instead, I usually just overlook his posts because they’re most often rehashed versions of something he’s written before.
In any event, I think I may start using that feature now.
The pregnancy and the child are not separate phenomena. The child is the natural consequence of the pregnancy. The fact that an unnatural event - a medically induced abortion - might end the pregnancy before the child is born does not render the pregnancy irrelevant to the child’s existence. No pregnancy, no child.
Only a woman can choose to have a child? Bull. Where pregnancy is concerned, having the child is still the default setting. The expected outcome. The box has been checked for you.
The woman gets the option of terminating the pregnancy because of it’s real and profound affect on her body - including possible threats to her health. The slogan isn’t “my bank account, my choice,” it’s “my body, my choice.” Neither parent has the right to refuse support to a child that has not been aborted. (This includes my childhood friend whose son somehow survived the procedure and was born perfectly healthy several months later. She chose to have the abortion, she had the kid anyway, she’s responsible for him. So even having an abortion is no 100% guarantee against the responsibilities of parenthood.)
Scenario: Terrorist A and Terrorist B build a bomb. Arming the bomb requires two codes - A has one, B the other. But only A has the code to disarm, because she’s the one the bomb will be strapped to.
If B knowingly enters his code to arm the bomb, he is responsible for whatever carnage ensues. The fact that A could disarm the bomb if she wanted to - because, after all, it is strapped to her - does not absolve B of the consequences of arming it in the first place.
Those of you who think the baby/bomb analogy is flawed have not seen my boss’s family room when the kids are through playing in there.
Rysdad, I know you read MEBuckner’s post above, since you quoted it. Which leaves me baffled as to why you would in that very post broadly hint that you were going to put Pld on “Ignore”. Do. Not. Do. This. The End. No More. Finito. Undertstood? You have a problem with Phil and absolutely must vent about it in public, take it to the Pit.
The problem is, neither A nor B wanted to even build a bomb. They just wanted to show off their engineering skills. In fact they took precautions to ensure that they would not create a bomb. They put some of the bomb materials in a box in the closet, and they smashed some of the other bomb materials in the hopes that they would be useless. They both agreed that they would NOT make a bomb.
So, they start their project, and unfortunately the box in the closet falls over and pushes the door open, and the contents spill all over the floor with the smashed bomb components. Also unfortunately, the smashed bomb components still work perfectly. In the end, A and B stand back to observe their completed project, and are both astounded to find that they just made a bomb! And the timer is already counting down!
B reminds A that he never wanted to build a bomb, and A is the only one that has the code to disarm, but now that A sees the bomb she really wants it to explode. B tries to jump out the window to escape the blast, but suddenly a force field appears to stop him!
