Abortion and Paternity Rights

[bladevalant546]

Well first off, not sure how you are thinking I am pro-life as I am not. Second, you could come off as more or less antagonistic. Thank you however for debating, you are bring up good points. People will have different opinions and beliefs.

No... I state they are inherent.

This by law, means absolutely nothing. You can make a law about the color of hat your people are allowed to wear... it's totally arbitrary.

The male can want this child, and he'll find this child's little different from the next child, with the exception that this one is dead, and that one might actually call him 'dada'. In neither of these cases does he have to put more than one night into developing it until it's birthed. Sometimes, he can put as little as five seconds into it. And that's what we call premature.

I see your point there, that is subjective view point I can agree to that logic.

Oh, so there isn't even that much until 3-4 weeks... and you're concerned about the blighter?

A fetus requires its host (the mother) to survive until it no longer requires it (which is more likely to occur after 6 months than before 6 months). So... it's like the alien in Alien. Gotcha, it's no longer a parasite, because it won't always be a parasite. I am not alive, because I will not always be alive. Your argument is nonsense

Also, a thing 'not ever going to happen' doesn't stop the argument from being valid. Answer the fucking hypothesis, or get your shit off mah forum: if my arm grows consciousness, is it no longer mine? It is 100% relatable to an unborn human what has achieved consciousness for the whole period of time it resides within the womb. It's not a straw man, it's taking your argument to its conclusion in another scenario. I could do the same with my big toe, with an addendum to draw even more similarities: after 15 months, the sentient big toe will separate itself from my body and start living as a separate unit from me...

*Is it within my right* to sever its consciousness before I lose my big toe?

Draw more similarities: it's now an extra toe that I don't want and have to suffer through having for 9 months, and towards the latter half it will grow sentient: IS IT WITHIN MY RIGHT TO REMOVE IT?

If yes, then it is also within my right to remove a human, aligator, or coffee cup baby from my womb. If no, then it is never within the right of the unit to remove a sentient being from its residence. There are no other options... DRAW MORE SIMILARITIES: I only have this extra toe because my boyfriend got my foot 'preggo' with it, and he wants his toe-child. WILL I BE FORCED TO KEEP IT BASED UPON HIS DESIRES FOR HIS TOE CHILD?

Draw even more: He could have a toe-child with anyone... why should I suffer through incubating this sentient toe that is causing me distress, pain, and discomfort, and a future arduous birthing process as it separates itself from my body... when he could have this with *anyone else*?

Think of the toe-people!

I am getting rather tired of repeating myself. I stated multiple times I support abortion before any point before a baby can be considered an unborn baby. That is my opinion however I am not going out and lobbying it.

Second part of your sentence, minus the pointless insult (even though I have remained civil) I see your point.

Rest of your statement, I do not think you even fully read my point. I stated again that a woman should not be forced. However, my objection is the total unilateral choice, against a male best wishes. Please actually stop holding bias because I disagree with you. However, according to your POV I can see your logic.

It's a simple situation, I cannot see a way to simplify it further. You're welcome to show me, of course. The situation is as relevant as doing such with *any other part of a body*... which includes the right to cut a nonperson protohuman out of that body. What rights does such a being deserve even once it has achieved personhood? We eat adult pigs, which are a thousand times the person even a live baby human could ever be... and why should it obtain any specific new rights upon becoming a person human anyway?

At some point, sure... what is that point? Also... why is it considered murder, and yet you are not tried for murder upon shooting a dog? And don't give me speciesism: if you're going to argue a moral point *argue the damn point*.

What functions a fetus organ system performs in the body is to give the body cramps, morning sickness, and to stop one's body from being able to perform any physically demanding activities without risking a horrible miscarriage. Expecting me to spin a positive light on the role of this new organ system being developed? It gives a couple 'feel good' chemicals to the host. It is, in full form, a parasite.

A fetus can be defined to be parasitic, however it is not a parasite by technical scientific definition (American Heritage Science Dictionary) As to be label as a parasite it has to be a separate organism, like a tape worm. Also that was a rather hypocritical statement you get on to me merely stating something (not trying to argue it) but you turn around not really talking about the point of this whole topic. We are talking about solutions to help the male party. One of which has been named.

Then develop new medical technology, and write all current fetuses off as wholly according to their host's discretion for now.

If you have an issue that can only be solved medically, then you have an issue that can only be solved medically

Then the discussion is over, because that is a good solution that should be promoted.

Foreign objects can't be mine? <----- the point you appear to be making with the fetus. I have the right to decide I no longer want a titanium rod as a part of my body. Removing them requires surgery or something similar at the least. You can't be so blind as to not see where we're going with this, no?

Can't imagine what political ideology would share my arguments, but if you can find them please do tell me, won't you?

Um no my whole state there was examining the interesting contradictions to the foreign object analysis. If you go back and read you will notice I never disagreed with foreign object rights. So no your statement is a miscommunication, I never stated foreign objects should be removed. I merely state the interesting paradox a fetus presents. I was not never really objecting it.

I stated this because right now, your whole statement is coming off as antagonistic without regard to listening and really being “free thinking” . I typically see this type of behavior one who was taught an ideology than really examining. If I am mistaken then politely correct me. And to answer your question Modern pro-abortion proponents.

Once the baby is born, it is -nobodies- baby. Desiring parents can ask for legal recognition of protecting and owning the (soon to be) child legally... but then there's always adoption if not even the mother wants the young human.

Genetics don't say shit... your parents are the people who accept (often legal) responsibility for you, and traditionally you're born into them. If only one party accepts parentage of you: you've got a single parent, barring any legal nonsense they use to force others into taking care of a child they do not accepts (I call this forced parentage, and am likely a minority in saying it is utter bullshit).

It's an organ until it leaves her body... a useless organ that does damage to her body (birth is painful, by the way), but it remains just that: an organ (a part of an organism that is typically self-contained and has a specific vital function... in this case being reproducing life and propagating one's DNA. That this organ is itself an organ system is irrelevant to its being an organ).

You make a valid point there, then you think it is bull that a male is stuck with child support against his will? If so I agree 100%

Organ no….not by scientific definition. However I see your reasoning so I can understand your point.

Still throwing out banter that everything I say is a logical fallacy... when you've yet to address how such is a logical fallacy, and you hold special pleading for specifically babies.

Special.

Pleading.

*How are they different*? I can state they're the same until you can find for me something so profound that I've managed to miss that I recognize a difference. This entire case is semantics and morals, it's not about logic, it is about 'what it is', and 'what is morally acceptable based off of what it is'. Logic is rather what I've been using this entire time to explain that this is a semantic and moral argument, as you might have observed: baby is part of woman's body, arm is part of woman's body, woman can chop off arm... therefore woman can chop off baby.

Then you come back in with <ARBITRATION> and arbitrated law, and expect me to think something of it... and when I don't, you scream 'logical fallacy': where?

My understanding of humanity is that likely similar to yours, but I guarantee that my understanding of personhood is not that of yours (mine requires personality, yours appears to require species only).

I only calling out how I see it and that is a large exaggeration. Merely including a fetus into that list is not correct regardless if you want to make that true. While you can make a point a fetus is a non-person in my opinion I do not see them as a same.

In this case regarding semantics you are then correct in this case no argument.

Sorry, if it is a fallacy that what it is. However, against stop exaggerating a little.

You think only personhood renders rights?

So you're saying a fetus isn't an foreign object? FUNNY! That's what I've been saying this entire time.

This is what talking about, that was a very legitimate question. I was asking you what you are trying to say because I did not get what you were trying to make.

You're really abusing the word fallacy. One starts to wonder if you know what it means.

One is a nonseparate organism until it becomes a separate organism, and the other is a nonseparate portion of an organism which we've stated has become its own organism and is now a nonseparate oganism until it becomes a separate organism. We're looking at A until B, and was C but is now A until B. Do try to follow along class, it's really not that difficult.

Did you learn logic from a toaster? I know I did. Toasters are the best

I am sure I make fallacies myself, however with your state I can see that what you are coming from.

If it was the brave little toaster then yes. Or a fraking cylon then no.

Not complex at all, really. You're just adding complexity to something very simply because the simple answer is not one you're happy with.

Hardly hypocritical, we stated at the start that there's an inherent inequality, and you were paying attention long enough to note it. For the women's issues of the 20s, there was no inherent inequality, but there was an apparent inequality (one allowed to work, the other arbitrarily unable to). This is exactly the type of arbitration people fight against: the law being unfair to people of differing groups for *no reason* beyond simply discriminating against those groups. This, on the other hand, is the law being fair to people of differing groups by basing their legislation upon *what people have*, which is men becoming fathers with 10 minutes work, and women becoming mothers with 9 month's work. Unless you're suggesting that these figures are *equatable*... there is nothing to argue here.

There are no objective analysis to *anything*, aren't you listening?

I listen better when people offer different POVs in tranquility I responded negatively to negativity. However, good point I see what you saying here. As for objective analysis to anything if I am reading your correctly then you are right since we cannot know anything with certainty….well other than gravity.

Cute, it's a logical fallacy to tell you that morals are subjective? I'd love to see you argue that. Actually, please don't bother... you'll just end up looking like a retard. I mean, I'm not even arguing "scientific truth" of morals, because, as you'll find: there is none. You do not scientifically become a person, you become a person when you meet the criteria for being a person (the criteria for which is semantic, and subjective). You do not scientifically become a criminal... you become a criminal when you meet the criteria for being a criminal (the criteria for which is semantic, and subjective).

There is no 'biological case' for any argument... there is *biological DATA* which is used in arguments for whatever case thinks it should use it. A multicellular organism is a clump of cells whether you like it or not... and if you're talking biologically: this is a fact That you're so grossly affected by it being called a clump of cells, on the other hand, is... YOU GUESSED IT: semantic.

I will explain myself here, the notion that was given off is that this was being used to prove your point rather than an example as you continue to show. So as for the rest of your statement it makes sense in the semantic debate.

Ever heard of introspection? Might what to consider it

Talking about logic, argues legal authority, expects to be respected when talking about logical fallacies

The very fact I am asking this shows introspection, I would not want other opinions. Also, people have different opinions and should expect some kind of opposition you know?

Last statement, I will admit my stake thanks I want people to catch me when I make them. So yes that is a logical fallacy against myself thanks.

You want to make me believe your point? How about you come up with one, buster?

Sorry strange sentence structure, I was trying to say I do not want to make you believe my point. Aka I do not want force my opinion on people. I will debate them, not hold a gun and insult or force you.

You'll probably find that if you stop getting up in arms about what I say, you'll probably agree with more of my statements.

You have to admit we both are getting up in arms. And yes you make valid points I your special way.

What is a sentient organism? If not a fetus, then what?

Humans as young as 2 weeks are 'naturally sentient', maybe even newborns... but it's hard to tell when they go from scream to sleep to scream to sleep without ever showing a different face. Not that I'm aware of what sentience shows as anyway... is it personality? Language... mathematics? Logic, being able to walk over to some water without falling over, building high-grade explosives, friend-foe recognition.. what

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. That last statement disproves my objectivity statement obviously I will concede.

In MY opinion sentience show the ability to take input of information and share the output of that information. Only other animal I seen through science to show this is dolphins.

Hey, I prefer contraception too... but I see introducing a child into an already volatile life is far more destructive, especially if that life is impoverished and it's unlikely to survive until adulthood.

Doing this in an environment where only one party involves wants it and can't afford for it by themselves... that's downright endangering.

I will repeat myself, my Girlfriend is pro-choice. She already made this argument and I agree with it. I again not arguing against abortion.

Sure it will, just give it a decade, and we'll have incubation outside humans just for fathers like yourself.. we've already got 'baby formula', can't be too far off.

I am stating I will not assume people will be like, sure put it in a tube. People can be retarded.

Plenty of ladies out there wanting children, but don't think any guy could possibly want to fuck them... all you've got to do is find them. Commitment is usually effective enough for getting your babies.

To be honest I find babies annoying…..yes truth comes out.

Ehh, my perception is in morals. My morals are not your morals, and I don't appreciate seeing such waved away as 'relativistic nonsense', what given that it shows a glaring flaw in understanding subjectivity.

I understand and I apologize as that was unreasonable on my part. I also have my own objections to pure subjectivity, as it appears to me only breeds chaos. Care to help me out?

In short minus an Ad Hominem here and there I think you made some good points thanks for the debate. You made me think aswell. Sorry for some of my own miscommunications. Also, to the post below this is not a competition it is a discussion I am not trying to win anything. Your question is a loaded one and before I answer I am not against abortion. I know what morning after pill does.