Abortion and Paternity Rights

[Violet]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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. Take it from a tranny

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?

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?

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.

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).

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.

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).

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Ever heard of introspection? Might what to consider it

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

No, that is the point or morality, and culture. The point of logic is to demonstrate itself, and reason is hopefully just logic dressed up to go to prom, because otherwise it is indistinguishable from reason that isn't reasonable.

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.

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?

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.

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 not going to speculate it will be that easy.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cato]

Blade,

Violet is handing you your ass. Before I pile on I would like to know if you agree that the morning after pill is contraceptive.

[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.