Ladies, you are just too stupid

The BBQ Pit
381

Yes, abortion should be made illegal.

We have a case in which a person is a genetic parent but not a responsible parent – say, because he’s a sperm donor. And in that case, I agree he’s not to be forced to donate a needed kidney to his genetic child.

But that’s not analogous to a genetic parent who participated in creating a child. The sperm donor doesn’t exist unless he knows he can donate sperm and end his involvement, and the sperm is taken with that understanding.

The genetic parents that create the child together, in ordinary circumstances – those are the parents I argue society should regard as responsible.

382

If she chose the keep the child, Man B has a financial obligation for the next 18+ years, and has no choice in the matter.

Because the sperm donor acts only because he’s assured there are no additional obligations to be had. If he were liable for such support, he simply doesn’t donate.

383

Yes, that’s true. But I thought you believed that we don’t submit human rights to a popular vote? When the issue was same-sex marriage, the idea that it should be decided by what most people believe seemed odious to you.

What is the rule?

384

Maybe there is a difference between rights for humans and rights for potential humans?

385

Ok, let me expand “sperm donor” slightly to include a man who is physically present at the act of conception, but maintains no relationship beyond that act - that is, a one night stand. Does he have that obligation to donate a kidney to a child he participated in conceiving?

A woman would not seek out a sperm donation only to intend to then abort - or even put up for to adopt . So the technical sense of sperm donor in this scenario is rather silly (and I am the silly one there, using it in such a loose sense, but I have now clarified.)

386

That requires I accept your definition of a fetus as merely a potential human, which I decline to do.

And there were almost certainly opponents to same-sex marriage – not I, to be clear, but I am sure they existed – who regarded gays as less than fully human.

387

Yes. And, indeed, the law already recognizes a similar responsibility. That man is liable for 18+ years of child support, should the woman choose to keep and raise the child, and he has absolutely no say in the matter.

388

No more sillier than expecting us to accept your religious belief about when one is a human with rights as a given before you will engage in debate as to whether or not your religious belief about when a person becomes a human with rights is itself valid. I can understand if you think that there is debate about this…but I cannot accept the premise that this debate is already over and that your definition is the only one.

389

No, in my scenario, the woman, having been forced to carry the fetus for nine months, then puts it up for adoption. Does the genetic father owe a kidney to that child? After all, the genetic mother apparently owed it to the fetus to carry it, against her will, for nine months.

If the child requires a kidney a few years down the road, what obligation do the genetic parents owe that child?

390

I do think the debate is over, but not because I require anyone to accept my version and definitions. Rather, it’s over because we each bring different postulates to the table. I have no more authority to declare that I am correct than you have to declare yourself correct.

What I hope, though, is that I’ll convince enough people through the political system to adopt my postulates.

391

Yes, I’d say he does - prior to adoption.

None – the act of adoption is a formal step in which parental responsibilities are assumed by the adoptive parents.

392

And yet the act of abortion is not? And adoptive parents do not share genetic material with the child, which is the only apparent connection an unwillingly pregnant woman shares with the fetus within.
OK - so if the gestating woman needs something from the man, is he obligated to supply it? Please understand my position. I, as a woman, am obligated to use my body to support a fetus that is unable to survive without me, even if I have no desire to gestate it. My wishes are subjugated to the survival of the embryo, in the hopes that it will develop into a human capable of surviving outside my womb. Up to a quarter of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that’s only when the woman knows she is pregnant! Thirty one percent of allconceptions end in miscarriage. Is the donor of the other half of the genetic code “off the hook,” so to speak, or should the woman be able to compel him to …I don’t know…financially or physically (in the case of a needed medical treatment) support the woman who is using her own body to develop life within her womb? To what degree do BOTH genetic parents owe a fetus during development?

393

( and as an aside, which I hope will not derail the discussion above - if ensoulment occurs at conception, rather than at some point of viability, how many trillions of baby souls are in …I don’t know if Catholics still believe in Limbo – either Heaven or Hell? ) One third of all conceptions end in miscarriage. That is one third of all humans EVER that never made it to viability, even discounting abortion.

394

Because if ensoulment occurs at conception, I have several siblings who are in Hell – or wherever unbaptized miscarried souls end up.
And that makes me feel a bit sad.

395

I see this is a cut-and-dried case where abortion is clearly the preferable option.

396

I’ve pointed out before that self-described “pro-lifers” are generally remarkably indifferent to this massive loss of life among entities that they claim to consider as fully human persons. I know of no “pro-life” organization that’s even attempting to raise awareness of this issue, much less support medical research into ways of remedying it.

This strongly suggests that they’re not really concerned so much with the tragic loss of fetal life as with the political goal of redefining fetuses (and even fertilized ova) as fully human persons, in order to be able to control the actions of pregnant women. If they really wanted to maximize “pre-born” lives saved, that would be much more effectively accomplished with widespread free birth control plus significant medical advances in the prevention of spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage).

While conveniently failing to disclose to them that your “postulates” are based on nothing other than a purely religious belief in some mystical process of “ensoulment” of a fertilized ovum by a supernatural deity, no part of which has even a shred of scientific or logical support. (A deity, moreover, who then promptly destroys at least one-third of the embryos that it has gone to the trouble of “ensouling”, most often without anybody ever even being aware of their existence.)

397

The act of leaving a week-old infant in a dumpster is also a signal that the parent wishes to terminate her parental rights. But it’s not one that society recognizes as a viable one.

Adoption is a transfer to a new parental relationship, in which the care of the child remains assured.

So: no, abortion is not.

Correct. So?

I would absolutely favor a framework in which the father is legally responsible for care of the mother’s gestational health.

398

Limbo was never an official doctrine of the Catholic Church, although many believed it and many undoubtedly still do.

The answer is that we don’t know. Indeed, we don’t know the disposition of souls of the vast majority of people who lived to adulthood and then died.

399

To the contrary. There is little point in raising awareness of the issue; it’s not a political cause. It’s a fact of nature that the beginnings of human life are incredibly fragile and many fully human persons die, naturally, before their development can really begin.

How does widespread birth control reduce miscarriages?

And There is no dearth of research in reducing unwanted miscarriages now. The greater threat to the unborn is the deliberate killing of them; we already are trying to prevent miscarriages when the baby is wanted.

It’s true I believe in a soul, but not true I have failed to disclose that belief. And it’s not correct to suggest that only religious belief can inform a pro-life stance. Here is the reasoning offered up by a secular pro-life group, dedicated to the proposition that unborn children are human:

400

End of the “fact of nature” part.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
and many fully human persons die, naturally, before their development can really begin.

[/quote]

Disingenuously juxtaposed religious belief about “full human personhood” which is not a fact of nature in any meaningful sense of the word “fact”.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
How does widespread birth control reduce miscarriages?
[/quote]

It reduces abortions, while the medical revolution to prevent the massive loss of fertilized ova would reduce miscarriages. That would save many more “conceived lives” than banning abortion.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And There is no dearth of research in reducing unwanted miscarriages now.
[/quote]

AFAICT, such research focuses on miscarriages later in pregnancy, when the pregnancy is recognized, rather than the early failures that destroy about one-third of all fertilized ova.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
The greater threat to the unborn is the deliberate killing of them; we already are trying to prevent miscarriages when the baby is wanted.
[/quote]

Nah, the greatest threat numerically is the wiping out of one-third or so of all of them, which as I noted is not a research priority. Anti-abortion-rights people just say “oh well, they’re fragile” and shrug it off. So much for sincere conviction of “fully human personhood”; I cannot imagine that if, say, one-third of all toddlers were being continually wiped out in epidemics, the same people would say “oh well, toddlerhood is fragile” and dismiss it as “not a priority”.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
t’s true I believe in a soul, but not true I have failed to disclose that belief.
[/quote]

You admit it if pushed on the issue with direct questioning. But otherwise, you cover it up with unsupported assertions about fetal/embryo personhood as though it were a “fact of nature”.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
And it’s not correct to suggest that only religious belief can inform a pro-life stance.
[/quote]

I haven’t suggested that. What I’m saying is that only religious belief in any way justifies your assigning full human personhood at the instant of fertilization based on the hypothesis of a supernatural process of “ensoulment”.

Another mere “argument by assertion”. That source is basically saying, just as you are, that we can arbitrarily decide that a fertilized egg counts as a full human person, and call that decision “valuing human life”. This “reasoning” is fundamentally no more rational or factual than your belief in the supernatural concept of a soul.

But then, atheists and secularists are not automatically any more rational than anybody else. Nor, I should emphasize, is there any need for people to base their personal beliefs about abortion and human personhood on rational grounds. Anybody can believe whatever they want.

But when people in a society with an explicitly secular legal framework start trying to make their personal beliefs about abortion and human personhood into laws for everybody else, it behooves us all to be very clear about the arbitrariness of their position and the arrogance of their trying to impose it on others.

Similarly, I have no quarrel with animal-rights supporters believing that humans have no right to slaughter cows, for example. But when they try to enact laws imposing their belief on others, it’s worth inquiring closely into what that belief is based on.