Abortion and Paternity Rights

[Cato]

I like to pose a double standard and logical issues with the "woman's body" term. Concerning this, here is a double standard first a female and unilaterally choose to keep the baby and force the father to pay for it. Even if the father does not want the child nor want to pay for it. Second a female unilaterally can abort a child against a willing father wishes. So which is it? Let use logic here, In situation A it is implying oppression to the male party to be force into an unwanted legal obligation. (and no Misandrist statements like, the dude impregnated her. Unless she was raped it was a mutual choice)

There is no misandry involved in legally requiring a man to take responsibility, even if just financially, for his creation. The alternative, leaving the mother to solely provide for the kid was a well established practice and the basis for the law. Crying oppression here is absurd. Men know what the potential consequences are.

[The Grand Nudger]

FFS people, child support is not a punitive measure. It's not about whether or not the father "knew the consequences". He isn't being charged with a crime. I know that in practice we see examples of child support being used punitively - but that is not the justification behind child support legislation.

[Cato]

I made no claim that child support was punitive. I invoked 'knowing the consequences' to negate the claim that the expectation of support was not a form of oppression.

[The Grand Nudger]

Understood, but "knowing the consequences" equally applies to the female in the picture - and is not factored in - in either case - in this sort of case.

For example -"Your honor she told me she was on birth control" doesn't carry much weight in a child support hearing. No more so than "She knew that having sex could lead to pregnancy" carries any weight when trying to bar a woman from having an abortion.

Unless we're referencing very-very specific circumstances whether or not the male had any clue that a child was going to be born is irrelevant - and whether or not the female realized that a child was going to be conceived is irrelevant. It's not an issue of consequences, known or otherwise.

[Violet]

First of all thanks for the responses, Thanks Festive1 remaining civil.

I like to pose a double standard and logical issues with the "woman's body" term. Concerning this, here is a double standard first a female and unilaterally choose to keep the baby and force the father to pay for it. Even if the father does not want the child nor want to pay for it. Second a female unilaterally can abort a child against a willing father wishes. So which is it? Let use logic here, In situation A it is implying oppression to the male party to be force into an unwanted legal obligation. (and no Misandrist statements like, the dude impregnated her. Unless she was raped it was a mutual choice) Then there is situation B, when a male is more than willing to be financially obligated and that choice is also ignored. This is an apparent oversight and it strikes me as inequality.

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

Second is a well coined term, it's her body and the "baby" is just a clump of cells. So is it really part of the woman's body? Well by biological standards it is a foreign object.

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.

Now there is logical arguments to state the removal of foreign objects is a right of the person. That is a true statement and I consider that a compelling point. For the sake of this debate since a potential life is at stake I feel this is a different situation. So is it her body, yes that is a simple question, and is the child inside her body, yes it is. Since we cannot extract a fetus and grow it in an artificial test tube. We are stuck giving birth at least after 6 months the good ole, natural way. So the question is really this, "what is a fetus and is it considered part of her body? I am sure yall know what a fetus is, so let us look at the later part of the question. Is it part of the body, I say no this reasoning is because the simple fact that genetically is it different from the carrier. Now a good objection can be transplanted organs. While this appears to be a logical counter point. The flaw in this reasoning is that an organ serves a purpose with in the bodies role. A fetus on the other hand is merely "renting" space for protection from elements, predators, and disease.

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.

So we can logical and scientifically show that a fetus is not "part of the female body" so in terms of rights in that regard are proven false.

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'.

This comes to the foreign object debate. A fetus logically can be classified as a foreign object in its technical terms since it is not genetically belonging to the carrier (aka her DNA).

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 schoolbus, i think you get the point by now, no?

However, typically a foreign object is usually identified as something outside the body. In this case that is only half true, it requires sperm cell and a zygote. This renders a logical dilemma, it did originate from the carriers body thus by definition not truly a foreign object. Infact it is less foreign than a transplanted organ, considering the female body will create an immune system exception to the fetus. Does this disprove this statement it is the woman's body. No what this does provide however, is insight of the complexity of this issue. This is showing that it is not a simple dismissal and this requires a lot more heavy scrutiny and objective analysis. I feel that typical argument as it stands is not a valid one for pro-abortion.

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.

Now the second point that seems to be a common misconception and ill-conceived and obvious propaganda tactic. What is it to you it is only a clump of cells.

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

Well anything with a certain negative tone otherwise known as misleading vividness. It is a dehumanizing tactic to make you more likely to ignore any possible ethical and moral issues that might arise. Now to every myth there is truth. Within most early trimester 1-3 weeks it is a clump of cells. However, that is about how far the similarities are. The zygote at this stage is alive, separate DNA from its mother after chromosome fusion and DNA replication. Thus it is not like a tumor, as a tumor is a genetic mutation cause by viral, radioactive exposure, or genetic errors.

Okay... so it's a clump of cells with different DNA? Not sure how that stops it being a clump of cells FULLY-GROWN HUMANS are made of cells, but they're big enough that we wouldn't usually call them a 'clump' of the things. Instead, we typically think of them in correspondingly larger parts of organ systems, skeleton, penises... yknow?

I don't ignore ethical and moral issues, I simply do not find any with aborting the development of nonpersons. And I have only mild pause in aborting the development (and even killing) of persons who show some elements of personality but not all (such as young living babies). I'm willing to eat, but not to kill (unless circumstances suggest I should), full persons (such as adult pigs). As I said, I'm a simple girl, with simple tastes, and bacon is delicious.

Roughly about 8-9 weeks into the pregnancy, brain activity forms (the source is what I learned in basic human biology courses in trimester stages while in school.). While it is very basic most likely automotive functions and nervous system tests. This is where the argument is merely clump of cells completely falls apart and thus is merely a logical fallacy. Now I understand according to most statistics most abortion occur within 3 weeks. That is okay in my book and is not the subject of debate here. I also like to point out even Christopher Hitchens understands this idea and I quote "[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up. I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be."

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.

Now I am not against a woman reproductive choice and I believe we should not legislate morality. I think Humanism should be considered here however, in sort what we are doing is destroying what does not need to be destroyed in the first place.

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.

It is holding back progress we could be making in improving possible alternatives that can preserve the child in cases the male wants it. I am standing up for a minority here that deserves their voice to be represented and considered.

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

In conclusion I think we should strive for better contraceptives that are not discrimatory (like only promoting vasectomies) and possible solutions other than pointless destructive means. I want to emphasize that I understand the sacrifices involved however I like to work with both sides for a peaceful and better solution than it is now. Again thanks for the thoughtful remarks I look forward to discussing this further.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Go make another baby, good lord: it's not hard.

Drink, insert, thrust, repeat - simmer on low for 9 months- bon appetit

[NoraBrimstone]

At the point where a normal abortion is legal it's not a child so the "father" is irrelevant.

I don't know why any woman would even tell the "father" she's knocked up if she wasn't keeping it. What's the point?

[Violet]

At the point where a normal abortion is legal it's not a child so the "father" is irrelevant.

I don't know why any woman would even tell the "father" she's knocked up if she wasn't keeping it. What's the point?

It's not a child until a parent accepts it And the moment it is accepted as a child: it becomes such. It can disbecome one the moment it is not accepted as a child... fun stuff, isn't it? Not that we legislate off of accuracy, of course.

Lots of things change in a few weeks.

[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.

[NoraBrimstone]

Fucking a woman doesn't (and shouldn't) give a man any ownership rights over body. So what if the foetus has DNA from him? So he managed to ejaculate? Congrats! That must be such a challenge for him!
No. It's in HER body feeding on HER nutrients, that makes it 100% her "property."

This isn't about the potential baby, it's about power. One minute he's doing the "Look at me, macho caveman with MANLY MAN SPERM! RAWR!" dance; the next, he realises the weak little woman doesn't have to have her vag torn open by his living-sperm creature and be a slave to it for the next 18 years if she doesn't want to, and he suddenly feels emasculated. Diddums.