Huh? What do you mean you don’t understand? I just told you I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
But we don’t accept this “potential unborn child” argument. When taken to the extreme, this line of reasoning results in the absurd conclusion lampooned by Monty Python: “Every sperm is sacred”. You have to draw a line somewhere as to what is not a potential unborn child. If I decide not to have sex, am I preventing a child from being born? That’s obviously absurd, but where does one draw the line? The pro-life camp draws the line at the sperm fertilizing the egg, if I’m not mistaken, but that is a completely arbitrary place to do it. A fertilized egg does not resemble a sentient human being in any way, and certainly is not capable of possessing or articulating any form of self-interest.
I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to specify some more. Since the “balance” isn’t compelling (her rights and the fetus’s are not in conflict - hers win without question), I’d like to see the “others”.
I don’t see the “responsibility” the pro-choice group is avoiding, unless you mean something mundane like ensuring post-abortion women get adequate follow-up care or something.
No one has said anything about thinking of them as wombs with legs. It’s a little disturbing that anyone would jump to that interpretation. Still, reducing women to “boobs and vaginas with legs” would not be any better than someone randomly deciding that women are “wombs with legs.”
“On a pedestal” obviously has different interpretations. I meant that phrase as “respect women as human beings worthy of an emotional investment above and beyond a one-night-stand which reduces women to the emotional equivalent of a discarded jizz sock draped over the bedpost.”
Is fuck-em-and-leave-em appropriate behavior for anything other than the animal kingdom? I mean, we humans have rules against killing others and stealing property to, just because we have emotional reactions to losing a loved one and/or losing our property. Desiring a committed, lifelong relationship with a woman does not make me a monster, or a misogynist.
If that were a man’s reaction, such a man would already have had a strong foundation of misogyny. If the living equivalent of his blow-up doll suddenly had to be treated with respect and some level of commitment, he would resent her and, therefore, think of her as an enemy. A man with that degree of misogyny should have his true attitudes made public.
Well, it’s romantic and appealing to human emotion in that choosing to live the rest of one’s life with someone is the ultimate compliment. Much more than, “I rub my genitalia with yours and it feels good. I move on now. Your other attributes have become tiresome.”
Love and commitment is what separates us from the rabbits.
When you oppose abortion, that is exactly what you reduce them to. You are telling every woman that a mindless blob of flesh, with fewer brains than a fly is of more importance than her. You are saying that her choice of what to do with her body is of less importance than her function as a life support system for that mindless blob.
Yes. Sometimes sex all about fun.
But threating millions with force in order to make them live out your ideal life - not theirs but yours - that does put you in the wrong.
It has nothing to do with misogyny; it’s the logical consequence of such laws. And why is it only bad for the man ? Your idea puts women in the same position of enforced distrust.
Perhaps. But you aren’t talking about anyone choosing anything. You are talking about force.
And a great many other things, including having sex for fun. Most animals have sex only to produce offspring, the situation you are determined to reduce humanity to.
Then tell that damn dog to stop humping my leg. I don’t want my calf to have puppies.
Disregard my use of the word “force.” Let us replace it with “legally encourage” or “cause selfish and reckless fucking have consequences for men and not just for women.”
It does now. It’s the woman who gets to choose to abort or not, and the man is liable financially if she chooses “not”. You are simply trying to punish the woman, not the man, by reducing her to a brood animal.
Actually, I’d like to differ with you on that. There are people who call themselves “pro-life” who would like abortion to be illegal even when carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger the life of the mother. Personally, I see those people putting the potential life of a fetus above the life of its mother, although I realize they may not see it that way.
I consider abortion morally wrong, however, I believe making it illegal would only result in more illegal abortions and in the deaths of women who get them. A recent study of abortion rates in countries where abortion is legal and illegal supports that hypothesis. Because I consider abortion morally wrong but want it to be kept legal, I call myself, “politically pro-choice”.
The whole “well, if you’re pregnant and don’t want the baby so give him up to a loving couple for adoption” is bullshit. Total bullshit.
If the pregnant women has an abortion, she has closure. There is no child.
If she goes through pregnancy, her body changes. When the baby is born, there is that attachment. If she gives up the child, she will grieve for it the rest of her life. What if the child is sick and needs genetic material? What if the child is hurting for the lack of a “real family.” What if the child is being abused, tortured, murdered? She doesn’t know and may never know. It will affect her the rest of her life. It may also affect the father the rest of his life. Isn’t abortion better than that?
Google “Lisa Steinberg” to see how ugly adoption can get.
I’m not saying abortion is the best choice. NOBODY IS. I’m saying sometimes it is the better choice.
You are aware that this is pretty much the virgin/whore dichotomy women have been complaining about, right? The one that reduces us to stereotypes rather than three-dimensional human beings?
While I do appreciate part of the sentiment behind this plan, it hasn’t left much room for women who don’t want to marry and raise kids with every guy they screw.
I’d do it, if the kid’s presence puts the mission at risk.
Anyway, you never responded to my question about the abortability of fetuses produced through cloning or other advanced fertility techniques. Since these fetuses wouldn’t exist in the first place without direct medical intervention, do they has as much, more, or less claim to existence than a naturally-conceived fetus?
No, because coal, once turned into gold, given all the high-tech gadgetry, is the same as other pieces of gold.
That does not mean that any piece of coal you may find laying around is the same as gold.
Similarly, once a fetus is created (via high-tech gadgetry or not), it is still a fetus.
BTW, maybe the coal/gold analogy does not work that well, since gold, by itself “just sits there”, unlike a fetus, which grows and develops.
Maybe a better analogy would be if we could zap breadcrumbs and turn them into pine nuts. Once a pine nut, it will still grow into a pine tree, without any high-tech assistance. That doesn’t mean that every breadcrumb is equivalent to a pine nut.
And the pine nut still isn’t the best example for a fetus that is growing in a womb. A better example would be a small 1-month old pine tree growing in the woods. If you go an rip it out, that is different than never planting the pine nut, and is even more different than never zapping the breadcrumb into a pine nut.
Of course, we have no moral issues with ripping out small pine trees growing in the forest, or in our back yard, but I just wanted to make clear that there are differences in 1-month old trees already growing and generic material that may be turned into small trees.
If the kid puts the lives of the people in the spaceship at risk, then I would agree (and even then it would not be an easy decision about what to do), but if the difference is between managing to get 5 soil samples from Mars versus 10 soil samples from Mars without the kid, then I would not agree.
Pregnancy is not always stopped due to anyone’s life being at risk. Most of the times, it is because the baby is coming at an inconvenient time.
So, the analogy would be if you throw out the 2-year-old stowaway because having him around is inconvenient.
