Abortion and Paternity Rights

[bladevalant546]

The inequality is inherent in the sexes. Most males cannot have a baby in them, most females cannot get somebody pregnant. Why force male parties into a legal obligation, or females into such, for *either reason*? Seems pointless to me... a guy wants the kid? He helps raise it. She doesn't want the kid? The guy can get another lady pregnant.

Boy... that was easy. He didn't even have to carry the thing inside him for nine months

You admit then the inequality of the sexes are apparent. That means by law there has to be more scrutiny, in which this case is it not. However, while your solution is merely a patch however does not resolve the fact male might have wanted this child. Again, I feel with that quote not much discussion there.

Umbilical cord, placenta, connects to more cells (which is being constructed inside her body, housed inside her body, and feeds off of her). Whether that part of her body is a person or not, is not relevant to whether it is part of her body or not. Biologically speaking... it is a temporary body part, which some of the body believes is foreign, but the rest considers adopted.

Observe: if your arm one day grows a brain, and develops personality, it is a person. It is also your arm, and clearly part of your body. It can't survive without being attached to you, so simply removing your arm from you to distinguish persons is not possible. The question arrises: is it your right, since it is your arm, to remove the offending personality from your arm... or is it your arm's right to leech off of you and generally fuck up its host's life for a very long time (possibly until death of host)?

Either way, we're setting a precedent for when you find some otherwise homeless person in your house.

Your first sentence is only relevant after 3-4 weeks. Regardless, we are debating persons here, we are debating rather or not a male can have some say in btw equally by law his baby. Second paragraph is a straw man argument. IT also is not relevant to this discussion since it cannot happen. Also, the arm is considered a parasite meaning it will require the host to survive. However, a fetus until 6 months (with medical attention) will feed off the mother so by biological definition it is not a parasite.

If it's renting space... with what does it pay?

I think you'll find that whether a thing has a purpose or not in your body is not relevant. I can chop off my fingers, and it's well within my right to do so, and I can have any part of my body removed (just not my any doctor who refuses to do harm to me)... I can even turn bits of my body inside out (legally). Purpose does not impact the fact that it's my body, the vessel of my brain

Consider: if purpose is relevant, then removing a purposeless part is a cinch.

Again, irrelevant situation and oversimplification. Here we have I will concede a “potential person” in that case, through due process we have to use our reason here. What reason states at some point you are destroying a person, just like murder which is illegal you are doing such a deed. Let me make it clear it is obvious I referring to any fetus roughly 5 months. So again to answer your statement, what organ function does this part of the body do?

Can we? Okay then... pull it out of her and incubate it elsewhere. Problem solved: we don't kill the homeless fucker who refuses to leave, and give it socialist housing elsewhere. Personally, I like to call this place 'jail'.

If you read what I stated before, that is not possible with our current medical technology. I accept this as a solution however not a realistic one currently hence the issue.

So... my titanium bones are not actually... mine? Fascinating! My old heart had a major problem, so now I have a new heart, but now that it's in me, I can't call it mine? Cool.

Genetics are irrelevant in ownership unless you make them relevant, which you shouldn't... because it's stupid. Whether a thing be foreign or not matters little: it's your smallpox, your baby, and I would argue that the penis inside of you is yours too (at least for the moment). We are each a unit, made up of parts... if something enters in as a part: whether we like it or not, it becomes a part of the unit.

Which is why we want to get rid of such parts what are parts of us, but which we don't like or recognize we need rid of... such as diseases, fetuses and babies, tumors, lubricated mice that have gone too deep, bullets, arrows, nerf gun darts, horse hooves, knives, penises, birth control thingamabobs, spiders, maggots, worms, cavities, bruises, other people's penises when you're not having a good time, the ball of your stick-shift (don't ask), bugs, little green men, the magic school bus, i think you get the point by now, no?

Your first sentence is slightly confusing? Yes those rods are foreign objects not sure the argument here. Also, second part of the sentence I made claim of that very argument citing the very organ transplant stating the logical issues with the definition of foreign object. Again I am rather confuse, you sure your just arguing because of what a political ideology told you?

Second paragraph render another double standard, so now once the baby is born it is mine? How do they prove this, through DNA tests. Genetics do denote paternal ownership. It is post natal, therefore through due process pre natal. IF we classify this any differently we end up with the people who abuse child support and use it to trap men. That is irrelevant, in conclusion your comparing two different things. One is an organ the another organism that so happens to genetically belong to the male as much as the female.

Second paragraph, again another logical fallacy, while some of those are valid however you cannot state babies are part of that list. Unless your perception of what is human is different. If that is the case then no point debating semantics.

Funny... here I thought that foreign objects that are part of the unit are typically getting inside the unit from 'the outside world'.

So wait, you spend one paragraph arguing that the reason I can't cut it off like my very-not-sentient arm... is because it is foreign... and then the next one you argue that it isn't foreign?

The situation is only as complex as you make it. For me, it's an extremely simple one... but then I don't have about ninety hypocritical terms I've invented to juggle around in my head either. You can't have an objective analysis, so you'll have to settle with an intersubjective one... so your answer is going to end up being cultural.

So through your first sentence you contradict yourself? You stated a fetus is a foreign object but then say foreign object is from the outside. I am wondering which is it?

Second is another fallacy, your comparing two different entities here. One a separate organism the other literally your arm.

Umm it is complex, because like women in the 20s one party is not being represented well, in this case at all. Second hypocritical? When I want an objective analysis to a very big issue? Not very productive to solve problems is it? Second apparently I did, and been more than civil in accepting other views if you read my other responses.

Have you considered that to some people... it is only a clump of cells? And it stays that way until out pops a living, breathing, screaming baby? Perspective.

Some people consider that clump of cells to be their baby, human, a person, and all sorts of other silly stuff. Cool for them. Of course, they still should totally abort if they don't want it

That is a Relativist Fallacy I hate being anal with these but it really helps trust me. Just because people want to believe that does not make it scientifically true. Maybe you can play semantic gymnastics and mold a multicellular organism to be a “clump of cells” . However considering the context, this is not the biological case.

The similar level of brain activity which you might find in spiders: automatic systems accounted for. 'Merely'? It *is* a clump of cells, and you can't ague it without looking stupid, because it is a bunch of cells clumped together. Now it is a clump of cells with a nervous system, but it's still a clump of cells

Peeps be throwing around words like 'logical fallacy' in a subject not under logic's jurisdiction, but of semantic's and morality. Debate them logically all you like... you'll find all of them perfectly illogical. The issues at hand are decided by 'at what point does it become a person' and morality, which is whether it being a person is relevant to a person or not.

The concept of an unborn child seems to me to be very real... for some people. Like mister Hitch. To me, it applies only when the parent expressly believes in said concept. I would, if I could be pregnant, because I would attach to a clump of cells: personality it doesn't posses, a future for it which might not even happen, and dreams of making it an awesome person once it's born. [quote]

Again the same logic applies, just because you add your definition does not change what it REALLY is. Yes logic can be applies, especially since this is under law. And if logic cannot be applied and protected under rational law therefore it should be scrutinize all the greater don’t you think?

Last sentence is totally relevant to your definition, if that what you want to believe so be it. I won’t and (throughout this) want to make you believe my point. 

[quote] Lodged bullets often do not 'need' to be removed in the first place, need is a very powerful word, and it is completely and utterly goal-dependent. You need to breathe, if your goal is to live. Your need to eat, if your goal is to not starve. You need to drink, if your goal is to not suffer thirst.

I agree that we should not legislate morality... hence females should be able to abort whenever they fucking decide to, even it they've waited so long as to make it stupid and pointless.

However, I do not agree that Humanism should be considered... because I'm only very slightly speciesist. Again... needs of peeps is subjective and goal-dependent.

I actually agree with your first statement, and as I said previously I understand the survival need for abortion, again not the relevant discussion here.

At what point however is it crimes against humanity and used irresponsibly? That is the point of logic and reason.

I cannot fight your ideology, however I value sentient organisms greater than non-sentient. I will help you it can be argued that a fetus is non-sentient. However, I believe the fact humans are naturally sentient shows that they do classify under this guise. Good point however.

How is it holding back 'progress' in this area? If you want an alternative, you can invest in incubators that work with mammalian children. Mice work perfectly well until you get a working prototype.

There's your alternative. It gets out of her unit, and doesn't die. All of your little problems solved. Stand up for a minority all you wish... just don't make that minority sound retarded while you're voicing away

It is promoting pointless destruction (yes I know we are destructive) that can be avoid thanks for contraception. Second part, I would if the technology is there who knows I might…..then that is a new can of worms.

I not going to speculate it will be that easy.

So... your issue is... marketing?

Gave you your non-destructive solution, now go do what scientists are likely already attempting to do, and make it work

This 'sacrifice' you speak of is remarkably one-sided. Go make another baby, good lord: it's not hard.

So... your issue is... marketing?

Gave you your non-destructive solution, now go do what scientists are likely already attempting to do, and make it work

This 'sacrifice' you speak of is remarkably one-sided. Go make another baby, good lord: it's not hard.

I more interested in viruses, but I already stated that this is a valuable solution. However rather or not females will be for it remains to be seen.

Read my response to festive1, I believe I recognize this. However it is still more complex issue.


However, I feel your perception is in semantics. However, thanks for the response.