iPOW #01

[Lynch]

You're saying you're ok with the idea that every time you have vaginal sex, it's essentially a half-million dollar game of chance?

Pretty much.

I know that I'm taking a risk as there is not yet a 100% effective means of birth control that still allows for vaginal sex. If I'm not willing to take that risk, however small, of either pregnancy or having my contribution to the gene pool thrown down the toilet then maybe I shouldn't be playing the game.

[Lynch]

I always find it interesting how people always bring up the idea that the Man needs to have some choice about things that will affect him. Maybe it's just me, but I figured that I had my chance when I decided where and when I was going to ejaculate.

I'm calling B.S.

What if the man was lied too and told by the woman that her birth control was current and active? You can then blame the man for not killing his sperm 1st, but lets face it, sex without a condom is more fun than sex with a condom*1 and it is pretty difficult to kill male sperm via a pill. So unless you are MANUALLY applying the spermicidal jelly or inserting a sponge EVERY time, you are vulnerable to getting screwed*2. I dunno about you but, "Hold on honey, I know you told me you are on the pill but I don't believe you because I didn't see you take it this morning so I need to spread some jelly around your cootch." is likely to cause you to NOT EJACULATE AT ALL. Thus defeating the purpose of getting laid, which is fact to ejaculate.*3

In a perfect world where everyone was honest and forthright your statement is valid. Call me when you find that place, I'd like to come hang out.

I'm not sure I see the BS. What it sounds like you are saying is that if you take responsibility for your actions, you might not get to have sex or if you do it won't be the infinitely superior naked cock sex[1] you wanted. Regardless of the lying strawwoman, we[2] know that birth control is not 100% effective and there are plenty of things that can make it even less effective.

We also know that if a woman gets pregnant than she has the choice to go through with it or to end it. It's not like we didn't know the possibilities going in so maybe we should suck it up and take responsibility. Isn't that the argument that the pro-birth people apply oh so frequently to the female half of the equation?

[1] To be honest, having had both, I can't see what the big deal is. Perhaps I'm just a sexual philistine.

[2] We being men in general. I'm sure that there are specific men who are not aware of this.

[Lynch]

I always find it interesting how people always bring up the idea that the Man needs to have some choice about things that will affect him. Maybe it's just me, but I figured that I had my chance when I decided where and when I was going to ejaculate.

I do not disagree with this at all. In fact, by choosing where and when you're going to ejaculate, it can be said that you're assuming responsibility if the ejaculation leads to pregnancy. This is part of why the law is so one-sided. The man is responsible because he chose to ejaculate in such a way that pregnancy "could" occur. Even though the woman chose to allow the man to ejaculate in a way that could impregnate her, she has both the right and the legal protection to exercise her right to completely and totally remove any responsibility.

no, I'm not assuming responsibility if the ejaculation results in pregnancy, I'm assuming responsibility for the consequences of my actions, which may be pregnancy possibly followed by a child or an abortion or may be a good time or may result in both of us being terribly disappointed and never speaking again.

However, just like a woman can't force me to impregnate her because it's my body and I'm the one who decides, I can't force her to do what I want with her body because in the end it is her body and not an incubator for my semen.

[Lesotheron]

I'm out of time here, having spent it answering in other threads...

But something I thought was worth bring up in the "potential human being" argument, and the "sanctity" of such "life"...

It should be noted that the vast majority of "human beings" conceived are auto-aborted without the host (or the "father") ever even knowing she was infected.

Females intentionally disposing of a tiny fraction of a percent more can hardly be counted as the "holocaust" the religious right and the scientifically naive (or dishonest) tend to paint it as.

No, Lestheron... I'm not trying to put you completely in their box, just to clarify. I'm just sayin'...

But then... It is worth pointing out that, even inasmuch as you declare and believe yourself to be pro-choice, your clinging to incorrect legal and scientific principals do assist the position of the most radical right, by agreeing with the foundational argument of their position... that a blastocyst is a human being and disposing of it is "murder". After that, it's just a question of whether such "murder" is "justifiable homicide", and that is an incredibly dangerous fiction from which to begin a policy.

I didn't respond to this previously because I did not feel a need or desire to do so, nothing that is stated here contradicts what I believe. However, I would like to make a few points.

1) I would like to see the factual evidence that proves that a "vast majority" of fertilized eggs are "auto-aborted" (or as I like to think of it, biologically expunged) either before they are implanted in the uterine wall or after implantation, but before the parents are aware of the fertilized eggs' existence. If it is happening without anyone knowing, how can it be proven that it has happened? I am not saying it can't happen. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm asking how it can be proven to be fact that it happens in any specific quantity. I believe lines of thought such as this are just as dangerous as the lines of thought that can allow someone to "wedge" policies. Stating that something is possible (It is a fact that it is possible for a fertilized egg to be biologically expunged both before implantation and after implantation, yet before either parent can be aware of its presence) is completely different from stating that it happens in a quantity that cannot possibly be measured (if neither parent is aware that it has happened, neither one is capable of preserving any evidence that proves that it did happen. If it can not be proven that it did happen, it is impossible to prove how often it happens. It is only possible to speculate on how often it could happen).

Once either parent is aware that there is a fertilized egg (which can only reasonably be once implantation has occured), any biological expunging of said fertilized egg, no matter what developmental stage it has reached when it is expunged, is a miscarriage. Miscarriage is something that can be factually proven. A woman can be proven to be pregnant. It can be proven when a woman stops being pregnant. If the woman stops being pregnant before she gives birth, and it it not because of an abortion, it is a miscarriage. Every time a miscarriage is documented, it is a proven fact. Therefore, you can measure how many times and how regularly it happens (although, you cannot assume that those figures are accurate because not every miscarriage is documented).

If you would like to change your argument to be based on miscarriages, I will gladly accept that information as fact, provided that you can show factual proof of any figures you quote.

2) Can you please explain to me why you feel that I'm "clinging to incorrect legal and scientific principles"? If not, can you explain what these legal and scientific principles are? Once you do that, can you clarify how they are incorrect? I have to admit, I don't really have any idea what you're saying here.

3) Agreeing with them in any way does not assist them. I do not conform to their opinions or beliefs. I do not encourage them to spread their opinions or beliefs. I do not argue on behalf of their opinions or beliefs. I have my own opinions and beliefs, some of which agree with theirs. You're basically saying that by considering myself to be on one side of an issue, I cannot agree with, or accept any opinions or beliefs that come from the other side of the issue. Can you defend that as "intellectually honest"? To be required to ignore an opinion or belief, intellectually, based only on the fact that it contradicts or disagrees with an opinion or belief that is held by people on your chosen side of an issue makes someone an intollerant blowhard.

Open minds resolve problems. Closed minds create nothing but headaches.

[Fnyunj]

...
Now, as I recall from sociology class some years back, in sociology we defined a difference between ethical and moral. One was what your tribe wanted you to do and I forget what the exact definition of ethical was....

Well, Ethics is really the field of study under which Morality falls. Within Ethics, there are different 'frameworks' that have been identified, or taxonomized, by various philosophers, etc. - for how people decide what is right and wrong. Morality is simply one of those frameworks.

(it is a common feature of religious conservatives, particularly those who are not well educated, to feel offended that Ethics is somehow a 'higher' value than Morality - because among religious conservatives, there is no higher value system than Morality, which is God's law. I think that this is one of the reasons they give crooked Republican politicians a free pass. As long as they SAY they're God fearin', whatever unethical behavior they do is okay, because there's no Commandment against taking money from a tobacco lobbyist, or handing out cushy state jobs to family members)

I was unforgivably imprecise in my terminology with my questions - because I was trying to get specific answers out of Honor. And I *did* mean to ask "when is it unethical" (or even more precisely: "wrong") instead of "when is it immoral" - but she caught it. Most of the time, I am not so precise (as was my intent) with my terms - often, purposely so. Out of stubborn habit.

By using "immoral" it seemed like I was trying to trap Honor into admitting that there was such a thing. That wasn't my intent.

[Swordsman3003]

I'd just like to apoligize for some of the mean and pointless stuff I've said on this thread. I'm not really going to try to explain myself, I just regret it.

[Lesotheron]

I'd just like to apoligize for some of the mean and pointless stuff I've said on this thread. I'm not really going to try to explain myself, I just regret it.

I don't feel that it's appropriate for me to say "apology accepted". Instead, if you are referring to anything that was said in conversation with, or in reference to me, I'm going to say "apology not required". That's the wonderful thing about words, no matter how mean or pointless they may be (not that I felt anything you said to me was mean or pointless) they cause me no damage, therefore, they require no apology. I will however offer you my apologies if anything I said caused damage to you (I know that at least some of the things I said unintentionally caused you to become upset, anything beyond that, I would need you to let me know).

[Hydrajak]

The law is essentially written as if men and the bad guys and women are saints.

I will meet my daughter's dates on the back porch cleaning a gun. Since my back porch overlooks my pasture (6 acres) I can hide a lot of dead bodies. I'm sure the boy will treat my precious angel with respect.

You know, the attitude expressed in that second quote isn't really helping to fix the problem addressed by the first quote.

[

Well Seth, you picked apart what I wrote and only took part of it. The other half is that, my BOYS will treat a girl with respect and if they impregnate her will be damn sure to take responsibility for their action and not leave that girl all by herself to raise the child or face an abortion alone. They will also have a condom in the glove compartment or their pocket on any date they go on. As I said, IF the man is a dead beat, the woman suffers more than the man because that is how biology works. But the law is written to ASSUME the man is a deadbeat.

In Computer Science Terms:

Code: Select all

if( man.values() == deadbeat )
{
  if( woman->wantsChild() )
 {
    harshLawToCollectSupport();
 }
 else
 {
  harshLawToCollectAbortionMonet();
  }
else
{
 if( woman->wantsChild() )
 {
  equitableLawsToEnsureManHasRightsEquivivlantToResponsibility();
  }
  else
 {
  OneHeckOfAStickyWicket();
 //One can argue that a man ought to be able to force the woman to have
 //the child and then he adopts it if she doesn't want it, but then SHE has to
 //pay child support. However since childbirth is somewhat dangerous, you
 //could argue the other side too
 }
}

The problem with our laws is that we only have the 1st if statement, the 1st else statement is totally missing. (Which is sort of Honor's point)

[ManaUser]

Please indent your code.

[Hydrajak]

Please indent your code.

I did, the forum software choose to un indent it.

[ManaUser]

Please indent your code.

I did, the forum software choose to un indent it.

Oh, in that case, please use the

Code: Select all

 tags. :)

[Honor]

I feel kind of weak that it's been so long since I offered a "complete" response in this thread, and I don't have time to do so today either... So here's another 'quickie', and the hope that I'll have/take more time next time.

But then... It is worth pointing out that, even inasmuch as you declare and believe yourself to be pro-choice, your clinging to incorrect legal and scientific principals do assist the position of the most radical right, by agreeing with the foundational argument of their position... that a blastocyst is a human being and disposing of it is "murder". After that, it's just a question of whether such "murder" is "justifiable homicide", and that is an incredibly dangerous fiction from which to begin a policy.

1) I would like to see the factual evidence that proves that a "vast majority" of fertilized eggs are "auto-aborted" (or as I like to think of it, biologically expunged) either before they are implanted in the uterine wall or after implantation, but before the parents are aware of the fertilized eggs' existence. If it is happening without anyone knowing, how can it be proven that it has happened?

Well... That's the thing, isn't it? We certainly, by very definition, can't prove how many "unidentified" pregnancies are auto-aborted... But we can certainly extrapolate from known numbers, including but not limited to known failure rates in various "assisted" attempts. The numbers I've seen set predicted rates at between 20% and 70%. Add to that the number/percentage of miscarriages of known pregnancies, and we're into some very serious numbers indeed.

The use of even the most conservative of these estimates get us to the idea that only 64% of pregnancies survive long enough to be "choiced", anyway. Now, ad to that the fact that we're discussing modern figures, and the point comes clear that the "natural" or "default" disposition of a fetus, throughout human history, is certinly not to become a human being.

I don't have the time or inclination to look up the proof again right now. The point you make earlier about if I don't prove my assertions then they're only beliefs is flawed on it's face. If I take on information without sufficient evidence, then they fall more readily into the realm of belief, but facts are facts whether I take the time to prove them to you or not.

I've asked for references and sources in these kinds of discussions myself, and I'm not saying it's unreasonable... I'm just saying, in this case, I'm short on time and you have Google.

If you would like to change your argument to be based on miscarriages

No thanks... "Miscarriage" and "Spontaneous Abortion" are the same thing.

2) Can you please explain to me why you feel that I'm "clinging to incorrect legal and scientific principles"? If not, can you explain what these legal and scientific principles are? Once you do that, can you clarify how they are incorrect? I have to admit, I don't really have any idea what you're saying here.

The key to that is contained in the second half of the paragraph referenced... "that a blastocyst (or fetus - clarification added) is a human being and disposing of it is "murder"." Legally and scientifically incorrect.

In reference to another post you produced, the fact that some "scientists", even 167 of them, are willing to stand up in court and say "Well, we're just not sure" doesn't mean this is in legitimate question. It more likely means that those scientists are arguing from a position of erroneous but popular belief.

When Nicolaus Copernicus, and later Gallileo Galilei made the obvious and correct observation that the solar system was heliocentric, similar numbers of "learned men" argued against them for the exact same reasons...

• a) Their indoctrination told them otherwise,
  b) popular society believed otherwise, and
  c) their flawed idea of the situation was far more anthropocentric, and thus far more appealing to them.

This doesn't mean that the earth was the center of the solar system until it was proven and accepted by all to be otherwise... If that were the case, we'd still be able to say "there is no scientific consensus on the heliocentricity of near space."

3) Agreeing with them in any way does not assist them. I do not conform to their opinions or beliefs. I do not encourage them to spread their opinions or beliefs. I do not argue on behalf of their opinions or beliefs.

I'm sorry... You can say, truthfully, you don't intend to assist them, but your beliefs absolutely do render that assistance, whether you like it or not.

Whether or not it's wrong to kill a human being is a much easier argument than whether or not an undelivered fetus is a human being... Just like whether or not there is an invisible sky genie is a much more difficult argument than what the invisible sky genie wants us to do.

Both secondary arguments are built on an initial fiction... Once you support the initial fiction, the secondary argument becomes not only much easier, but even required.

Suppose I say there is a giant blue dog hundreds of feet tall that roams the Himalayas, and the arctic & antarctic regions, and he eats snow... Which is the -true- cause of de-glaciation. If you rightly call bullshit on the existence of the dog in the first place, what he eats is a non-issue... But if you admit he exists, then it's up to you to prove he doesn't eat snow.


Other notes...


I take it from your post on "good Samaritan" laws that you're European... Here, they only protect you from lawsuit in the case that you help... They don't require you to help... But, I think if you'll look at my examples, you'll see that I took care to reference situations that protect the statement from European "good Samaritan" laws, as well, by referencing situations where I would be put in some perceivable danger by rendering assistance... This inclusion was intentional, since carrying a pregnancy to term is much more dangerous to the host mother than is aborting it.


Also... I'm comfortable dispensing altogether with the argument over whether a blastocyst or a fetus are human... I think it's as obvious as the moon orbiting the earth that they're not, but it just doesn't matter. It it exists inside my body, and solely at my sufferance and peril, then it's my right to dispose of it. Period. That includes "real human beings". If Billy Barty finds a way to crawl inside me and feed on my life-force, it would be my full and sole right to have him removed.

[Lesotheron]

I feel kind of weak that it's been so long since I offered a "complete" response in this thread, and I don't have time to do so today either... So here's another 'quickie', and the hope that I'll have/take more time next time.

But then... It is worth pointing out that, even inasmuch as you declare and believe yourself to be pro-choice, your clinging to incorrect legal and scientific principals do assist the position of the most radical right, by agreeing with the foundational argument of their position... that a blastocyst is a human being and disposing of it is "murder". After that, it's just a question of whether such "murder" is "justifiable homicide", and that is an incredibly dangerous fiction from which to begin a policy.

1) I would like to see the factual evidence that proves that a "vast majority" of fertilized eggs are "auto-aborted" (or as I like to think of it, biologically expunged) either before they are implanted in the uterine wall or after implantation, but before the parents are aware of the fertilized eggs' existence. If it is happening without anyone knowing, how can it be proven that it has happened?

Well... That's the thing, isn't it? We certainly, by very definition, can't prove how many "unidentified" pregnancies are auto-aborted... But we can certainly extrapolate from known numbers, including but not limited to known failure rates in various "assisted" attempts. The numbers I've seen set predicted rates at between 20% and 70%. Add to that the number/percentage of miscarriages of known pregnancies, and we're into some very serious numbers indeed.

The use of even the most conservative of these estimates get us to the idea that only 64% of pregnancies survive long enough to be "choiced", anyway. Now, ad to that the fact that we're discussing modern figures, and the point comes clear that the "natural" or "default" disposition of a fetus, throughout human history, is certinly not to become a human being.

I don't have the time or inclination to look up the proof again right now. The point you make earlier about if I don't prove my assertions then they're only beliefs is flawed on it's face. If I take on information without sufficient evidence, then they fall more readily into the realm of belief, but facts are facts whether I take the time to prove them to you or not.

I've asked for references and sources in these kinds of discussions myself, and I'm not saying it's unreasonable... I'm just saying, in this case, I'm short on time and you have Google.

If you would like to change your argument to be based on miscarriages

No thanks... "Miscarriage" and "Spontaneous Abortion" are the same thing.

2) Can you please explain to me why you feel that I'm "clinging to incorrect legal and scientific principles"? If not, can you explain what these legal and scientific principles are? Once you do that, can you clarify how they are incorrect? I have to admit, I don't really have any idea what you're saying here.

The key to that is contained in the second half of the paragraph referenced... "that a blastocyst (or fetus - clarification added) is a human being and disposing of it is "murder"." Legally and scientifically incorrect.

In reference to another post you produced, the fact that some "scientists", even 167 of them, are willing to stand up in court and say "Well, we're just not sure" doesn't mean this is in legitimate question. It more likely means that those scientists are arguing from a position of erroneous but popular belief.

When Nicolaus Copernicus, and later Gallileo Galilei made the obvious and correct observation that the solar system was heliocentric, similar numbers of "learned men" argued against them for the exact same reasons...

• a) Their indoctrination told them otherwise,
  b) popular society believed otherwise, and
  c) their flawed idea of the situation was far more anthropocentric, and thus far more appealing to them.

This doesn't mean that the earth was the center of the solar system until it was proven and accepted by all to be otherwise... If that were the case, we'd still be able to say "there is no scientific consensus on the heliocentricity of near space."

3) Agreeing with them in any way does not assist them. I do not conform to their opinions or beliefs. I do not encourage them to spread their opinions or beliefs. I do not argue on behalf of their opinions or beliefs.

I'm sorry... You can say, truthfully, you don't intend to assist them, but your beliefs absolutely do render that assistance, whether you like it or not.

Whether or not it's wrong to kill a human being is a much easier argument than whether or not an undelivered fetus is a human being... Just like whether or not there is an invisible sky genie is a much more difficult argument than what the invisible sky genie wants us to do.

Both secondary arguments are built on an initial fiction... Once you support the initial fiction, the secondary argument becomes not only much easier, but even required.

Suppose I say there is a giant blue dog hundreds of feet tall that roams the Himalayas, and the arctic & antarctic regions, and he eats snow... Which is the -true- cause of de-glaciation. If you rightly call bullshit on the existence of the dog in the first place, what he eats is a non-issue... But if you admit he exists, then it's up to you to prove he doesn't eat snow.


Other notes...


I take it from your post on "good Samaritan" laws that you're European... Here, they only protect you from lawsuit in the case that you help... They don't require you to help... But, I think if you'll look at my examples, you'll see that I took care to reference situations that protect the statement from European "good Samaritan" laws, as well, by referencing situations where I would be put in some perceivable danger by rendering assistance... This inclusion was intentional, since carrying a pregnancy to term is much more dangerous to the host mother than is aborting it.


Also... I'm comfortable dispensing altogether with the argument over whether a blastocyst or a fetus are human... I think it's as obvious as the moon orbiting the earth that they're not, but it just doesn't matter. It it exists inside my body, and solely at my sufferance and peril, then it's my right to dispose of it. Period. That includes "real human beings". If Billy Barty finds a way to crawl inside me and feed on my life-force, it would be my full and sole right to have him removed.

I've only gotten 1.5 hours of sleep in the last 82 hours, so I'll apologize in advance if this post seems hostile. After this post, I'm not going to respond any more unless my opinion is specifically requested. I'll check in on this thread occasionally just in case.

Point 1) If a fact cannot be proven, it is not fact. You can estimate or extrapolate or just plain guess to your hearts content, but there is no guarantee that the resulting numbers have any relation to reality. A more accurate way to make your point is to say "There is a theory that states that a significant number of fertilized eggs are passed out of the body without the knowledge of either parent." It is both true and accurate because it is a theory until it is proven and both the minimum listed value of 20% and the maximum listed value of 70% are significant numbers, but 20% can hardly be considered a "vast majority".

Point 2) I think I'll discuss this one more time before I go because this is what bothers me the most. This is not the only part of my position, this is not even the main part of my position, yet it is the only part of my position that is universally attacked. And when I give evidence and show fact that support this part of my position, I'm told that the evidence is wrong or that they're not facts, without anyone being able to tell me why this is so. You state that a fetus is not a child, even though Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary and American Heritage Steadman's Medical Dictionary both include the unborn in their definition of child. American Heritage Steadman's Medical Dictionary even differentiates between a fetus and an unborn infant (a viable fetus) and includes both in the definition. You state that these are incorrect, but they are medical fact. And since Medicine is still considered a type of science, that makes it a scientific fact as well. Sure, you may find some doctors who disagree, but Medicine, as an institution and a discipline, a valid branch of scientific study, has provided evidence and proof that this is a fact. Anything you know that disproves this may be as clear as the moon orbiting the Earth to you, but unless you clarify your opinion, it serves no purpose in this discussion. Not that anyone has mentioned it, but the legal definition of child doesn't include the unborn. This would be a valid argument for you to use, yet you haven't. But that's probably because you're aware that a legal definition is only a definition as it applies to the law, not an actual fact. Case in point: your qualifying statement of "That includes "real human beings". If Billy Barty finds a way to crawl inside me and feed on my life-force, it would be my full and sole right to have him removed." is erroneous. According to the law, since Billy Barty is not your offspring and has clearly been born, neither he nor you are protected by abortion law. He is criminally liable for assaulting you and possibly endangering your life, but you would be liable for murder if removing him caused his death. You could argue that it was justified homicide, but that is not a guarantee of freedom. That's why I point out that laws are based on opinion, not fact. You assert that you have the "full and sole right", even if it includes human beings that are legally recognized as such, but the law doesn't recognize that right. Just like Science has proven that "fetus = child" is fact, yet the law chooses not to recognize it. I accept your right to disagree, but if you're going to disagree, do so with fact, not theory and speculation. I've shown you mine, now show me yours.

Point 3) Surprisingly enough, I was born, raised and continue to be USDA Grade C Beef. Unlike some Americans you may have been exposed to, my senses do not end at our borders. I know of Good Samaritan Laws and I am aware of the protection they offer against putting you in harm's way, but I don't think cold water or the fact that a man is icky are inherently dangerous. If you had said icy river, or swiftly moving river or qualified icky to mean covered in oozing sores or bleeding from the mouth (there are masks that actually prevent disease from being spread in this way, but it could not be reasonably assumed that you would have one on your person, so I'm not even going to try to say that wouldn't be dangerous).

Part 4) I don't think that abortion should be illegal, but based on the arguments that I've seen here from the pro-choice or pro-abortion side of the issue, I don't think you guys have a chance. Someone who disagrees with you, even if they still maintain a woman's right to choose, gets met with hostility, told that their opinions, beliefs and even facts are wrong without being given a reason why they are supposedly wrong and then get "facts" spouted at them that have no evidence or proof (not that the evidence or proof is provided if a fact does supposedly have them). I'm sorry, but if the best this side can come up with is "We're right, if you disagree with us, that means that you're wrong.", "We don't need to prove it to you, it's just true.", "It's not a fact if I say it's not a fact." and the ever popular "Your opinions are bullshit, your facts are bullshit and you are bullshit." then I'm afraid that your "right to choose" will probably end up being a limited time offer.

I'll let you decide if you want to debate this further, I don't really see a point, though. If I am not able to present my facts (maybe because you feel that they're inherently biased against you?) and you don't have to prove your facts (and yes, I've tried google to prove your facts for you, but most places are so obviously slanted in one direction or the other that they contradict each other, so neither figure can factually be used to prove or disprove your points. That's why I argue that you should provide reliable proof if you say you have it. That way, if you've pulled the information from a site that is obviously slanted in one direction, I can show you the information from a site that is slanted in the other direction to illustrate that the the numbers have obviously been skewed by at least one side. Since it would be unlikely that either of us would be able to prove which side, if not both which is probably the case, neither set of numbers can be factually proven and are therefore irrelevant), then we're back to arguing opinions. And it's already been established earlier in the thread, not to mention being common sense, that arguing opinions doesn't get anybody anywhere.

Add in the fact that my original position, that a man should have a say in the "life" or "property" that is made up of 50% of his genetic material, isn't even being discussed, just dismissed, and I really have no reason to be here. But aside from a brief spat with swordsman3003, and some serious hostility and irrationality from LeftTentacleGreen, I can't complain about the experience this has been. I respect you, Honor, and your position, I just feel that you're ill-equipped (not unable) to defend it.

[Lesotheron]

*Edit* Damn double-posting, Damn it to HELLLLLL!!!

[Lulujayne]

I've only gotten 1.5 hours of sleep in the last 82 hours

Christ, why haven't you gone into psychosis yet?....... Or have you?

[Lesotheron]

I've only gotten 1.5 hours of sleep in the last 82 hours

Christ, why haven't you gone into psychosis yet?....... Or have you?

Not psychosis, just an intense bout of insomnia that I occasionally have to deal with. It's better now, 12 hours of vivid-dreamstate has a way of really refreshing a person.

[Honor]

I've only gotten 1.5 hours of sleep in the last 82 hours, so I'll apologize in advance if this post seems hostile.

Briefly... A) I think you should get more sleep.
B) Sleep or no, your post was far more civil than some of the folks on "my side" have been... I have no complaint.
C) I do, however, wish you'd adopt a more illustrated point-by-point, one snippet quoted at a time, rebuttal style and make more use of the carriage return key in crafting manageable paragraphs. I realize this is just a style choice, but I find such entries far easier to read. (I also find they tend to devolve quickly into ever-increasing posts of nine million snippets and responses each... So I'd happily settle for dropping the first part and just saying "needs more white space."


On spontaneous abortion... Yeah, I can back off of the term "vast majority", or at least the word "vast", leaving "simple majority". I don't even see enough gray area in this one to require lots of citation. Only a small percentage of the swimmers in a man's ejaculate are viable "baby maker" sperm, and in all, it's both difficult for an egg to get fertilized, and difficult for that fertilized egg to come to term.

Personally I haven't seen any "heavily biased" information on spontaneous abortion one way or the other... There's simply no need to bias it. Lots of fertilized eggs get passed, unnoticed, as menstrua. This isn't a big ol' nasty political subject... Just a fact of life. And not worth spending hours "proving" unless someone has some reason to doubt it.



On fetus=child... I think it has been implicitly addressed, several times, that we're discussing the legal implications of the word "child" rather than the emotional ones... At least that's been my impression of the conversation so far.

I (obviously) believe there is a time and place to haul out the dictionary in many, or even most debates... Recent discussions over the words "believe" and "choose" come to mind. But I think it's equally obvious that there are times when legal and scientific definitions trump social or emotional meanings

All of the arguments thus far presented (here or in society at large, to my knowledge) that an unborn fetus is a child rely on one or more of the following... Appeal to emotion, appeal to divinity, appeal to the masses, over-weighting of anecdotal evidence, discounting or devoid of meaningful scientific requirement.

Much of our law, custom, and social morals require treating something that meets no meaningful criteria of "being human" as human... Fetuses, infants, the comatose or vegetative, and, in surprisingly numerous cases, pets, and even corpses.

In some cases, this polite fiction is socially useful. In this particular case, it's dangerous, in that it can be used to deprive an actual person of her important personal rights that should be considered inviolable.

An unborn fetus (hereafter "fetus") has a heartbeat. Awesome. So does an earthworm. But a fetus is human genetic material. Great. So is a fingernail. But a fetus has potential to develop into a functioning human being. So, technically, does an unfertilized human egg... I direct you to the key word, "potential". A bill has potential to become a law, an acorn has potential to become an oak tree, a bowl of broccoli has potential to become a fart. Potential and actuality are not equivalent. Yeah, but a fetus has a soul... Yeah, fuck you. Souls don't exist.

See...? It's like arguing with a child that her teddy bear isn't a "living being". It's hard to rationally argue down an irrational point... Either you're smart enough and educated enough and capable enough of honest critical thinking and free enough of indoctrination that you can look at the vast weight of the evidence and recognize it as irrational, or you're not. Once she says "but teddy has a soul", you go ahead and try to prove her wrong. You can't. All you can do is sigh and say "You're wrong. You're a child." Nothing except growing up, gaining wisdom, education, and critical thinking skills, and outgrowing indoctrination will ever stop her from disagreeing and saying "your best argument is to simply say I'm wrong?"

Sound familiar?


On attacking your position of "fetus as human being"... Even though you say, over and over, "I believe in your choice", your position of "fetus as a living, human being is radically dangerous.

Imagine someone pointing a loaded, charged handgun at your head, placing his finger directly on the trigger, and saying "Don't worry... I believe in your right to not be shot. I just wanna hold this here. Don't worry." Imagine yourself into that position... Now, how comfortable do you feel?


Billy Barty Attack: It's incorrect to say I'm liable for murder, but it also might be justifiable homicide. This would be a case of self defense, cut and dried.



Male right to his genetic material: Actually, I've tried to steer the discussion away from the argument over whether an unborn fetus is a person, and to this subject at least twice now.

The male has no such right, for two legal reasons... First, unless he and the female were expressly engaged in a willful attempt to create a life, then he "discarded" the genetic material in question.

Second, the 'situation' created by the unintentional combination of his genetic material with hers is one that may inconvenience or endanger her, and is to be suffered only at her sole discretion. If something you own attacks me on my own legal turf, I have the legal right to defend myself, even if that means the destruction of your attacking property.

I respect you, Honor, and your position, I just feel that you're ill-equipped (not unable) to defend it.

I thank you, and similarly respect (although perhaps "sympathize with" would be a more precise term) your feelings on the issue.

The reason I'm "ill-equipped" to defend against it, though, is simply and solely because your position is an emotional and spiritual one, and thus cannot be wholly contradicted with science and fact. ...Regardless of how attached you became to the idea of that child, and as much as I sympathize with that very real sense of loss, and as sorry as I may be to even have to say so, what was destroyed was not a human being, and not yours.

[Lesotheron]

Briefly... A) I think you should get more sleep.
B) Sleep or no, your post was far more civil than some of the folks on "my side" have been... I have no complaint.
C) I do, however, wish you'd adopt a more illustrated point-by-point, one snippet quoted at a time, rebuttal style and make more use of the carriage return key in crafting manageable paragraphs. I realize this is just a style choice, but I find such entries far easier to read. (I also find they tend to devolve quickly into ever-increasing posts of nine million snippets and responses each... So I'd happily settle for dropping the first part and just saying "needs more white space."

I tried to keep it civil, but I'm ashamed to admit, it took several rewrites and running it through a spell-checker to keep it so (with sleep, I can usually get the same effect across without much effort).

I'll try your stylistic approach now. It's not that I don't like adding white space, it's just that I'm relatively new to the forum software and am not comfortable with the *quote* tags yet. This makes it far easier to just quote the whole message, then respond afterwards. But hey, I'm not going to get comfortable if I don't practice using them, right? I could use more carriage returns, but it's a writing style choice that is made more for personal aesthetic than ease of use. For that, I apologize.

On spontaneous abortion... Yeah, I can back off of the term "vast majority", or at least the word "vast", leaving "simple majority". I don't even see enough gray area in this one to require lots of citation. Only a small percentage of the swimmers in a man's ejaculate are viable "baby maker" sperm, and in all, it's both difficult for an egg to get fertilized, and difficult for that fertilized egg to come to term.

I don't disagree with you one bit. It is clearly a medically proven fact that it is can be difficult to get pregnant (that's why they have fertilitiy clinics). But you have to admit that some women don't have any problems getting pregnant (using the definition that implantation has occured and it can be medically proven that a woman is pregnant) repeatedly without having to do anything more than have sex once or twice. It's a crap-shoot where each roll of the dice has an equal chance of coming up "snake eyes"(unless there is some medical problem like infertility). I was not arguing the fact that it happens, I was arguing the "facts" of how often it happens when there is no proof of how often it happens. There aren't even any studies that I'm aware of where they're trying to find out how many times it happens, they just use estimates that get quoted as set-in-stone facts.

Personally I haven't seen any "heavily biased" information on spontaneous abortion one way or the other... There's simply no need to bias it. Lots of fertilized eggs get passed, unnoticed, as menstrua. This isn't a big ol' nasty political subject... Just a fact of life. And not worth spending hours "proving" unless someone has some reason to doubt it.

I have reason to doubt it when it's being used as an argument for or against abortion because that IS a big ol' nast political subject. And as for bias, you've said that you've seen quotes ranging from 20% to 70%, I've seen one anti-abortion website that quoted "a maximum of 3% of all eggs that are passed are actually fertilized" (it has since been removed, thank whatever you want for that). I can even show you a website (that has no aparent bias) that uses an estimation for total miscarriages and stillbirths using 20% of births and 10% of abortions. I'm not saying that their numbers couldn't be accurate, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be quoted as fact when it is clearly (even the website says that it's just an estimation) not. By the way, the website is for the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the information I cited can be found here.

On fetus=child... I think it has been implicitly addressed, several times, that we're discussing the legal implications of the word "child" rather than the emotional ones... At least that's been my impression of the conversation so far.

Sorry, you yourself said that it is not a fact that "fetus=child", not that it wasn't legally recognized that "fetus=child". If you feel that "fetus=slightly living tissue that has no rights", I'm not arguing that you're wrong for feeling that way (if it's a fetus from your egg, it's up to you to decide how you feel about it, just as the man whose sperm helped create it has to decide how he feels about it). It is a medical fact that "fetus=child" and a linguistic fact that "fetus=child"(the word child was, in part, created to include pre-birth, hence the phrase that a pregnant woman is "with child".) The argument should be about whether or not a fetus should be considered a valid human being, with rights, within the eyes of the law (medical fact proves that a fetus is the same genetic organism as the valid human being that it will develop into, and once it reaches the fetal stage, it is, while incomplete and underdeveloped, structurally the same, as well). As I've previously stated, I don't feel that a woman shouldn't abort a fetus, that's her right. I just feel that since the man involved in the pregnancy has the right to make the same decision and have his opinion heard (you brought up compelling a woman to have the child), I just said that he should have a legally protected SAY in the matter. I never argued that the man's opinion should trump the womans.

I (obviously) believe there is a time and place to haul out the dictionary in many, or even most debates... Recent discussions over the words "believe" and "choose" come to mind. But I think it's equally obvious that there are times when legal and scientific definitions trump social or emotional meanings

That is the gist of my position. Science says yes, law says no. The beliefs or opinions of anyone can't change that. That wasn't what I was arguing.

All of the arguments thus far presented (here or in society at large, to my knowledge) that an unborn fetus is a child rely on one or more of the following... Appeal to emotion, appeal to divinity, appeal to the masses, over-weighting of anecdotal evidence, discounting or devoid of meaningful scientific requirement.

What do you define as "meaningful"? I've proven how science has come to it's decision on the matter, why is that not "meaningful"?

Much of our law, custom, and social morals require treating something that meets no meaningful criteria of "being human" as human... Fetuses, infants, the comatose or vegetative, and, in surprisingly numerous cases, pets, and even corpses.

True. But the legal precedent (before Roe v. Wade) has always been that a human being is a human being from conception to death. We don't "abort" the comatose or vegatative (I'm not arguing whether or not we should, just that we don't), they have the opportunity, in the eyes of the law, to make their opinions known in the form of a "living will", if they had the opportunity to make one before they became comatose or vegatative. If they haven't exercised that option or were unable to, it falls to those who have a direct influence or responsibility for that person to argue about what's "best". And each person who has that influence or responsibility can be heard. They may not get their way, but they have a legally protected right and platform to have their opinion heard.

In the case of infants, it falls to the parents to make that decision. If either parent chooses not to raise (not support) a child, it falls to the other parent to do so. If neither parent wants to raise (or support) a child, there is the option of adoption. Once a child is born, there is no option of abortion, just a question of who is going to raise the child.

In the matter of abortion, there is no platform to be heard. My position is that there should be a platform for the man to have a say. For example, if an abortion is contested, the matter is argued in front of an independent third party. The woman has final say of whether or not the fetus can reside within her body, but until such a time as men can take over that responsibility, if they choose to, the man cannot be held responsable for the support of the child if it is brought to term. Both sides are now equally protected and have a valid choice in the matter.

Who knows, maybe that'll encourage someone to come up with a way so that the woman is no longer the only one who can bring a child to term. The movie "Junior" may be fiction, but remember, at one point in time, so was human flight.

In some cases, this polite fiction is socially useful. In this particular case, it's dangerous, in that it can be used to deprive an actual person of her important personal rights that should be considered inviolable.

But once again, I'm not asking for the removal of HER rights, I'm asking for the protection of HIS rights (men have legal protections that are equal to women's in other areas).

An unborn fetus (hereafter "fetus") has a heartbeat. Awesome. So does an earthworm. But a fetus is human genetic material. Great. So is a fingernail. But a fetus has potential to develop into a functioning human being. So, technically, does an unfertilized human egg... I direct you to the key word, "potential". A bill has potential to become a law, an acorn has potential to become an oak tree, a bowl of broccoli has potential to become a fart. Potential and actuality are not equivalent. Yeah, but a fetus has a soul... Yeah, fuck you. Souls don't exist.

Ah, but here you're arguing the potential of something where an influence can provent it from happening against the potential that someone or something has to actively attempt to make it happen. An acorn will or will not grow into an oak tree, whether or not anyone has an opinion on the matter. A bill cannot become a law unless someone tries to make it into a law. A bowl of broccoli can only become a fart if someone eats it. Left to it's own devices, the broccoli can never just transmute itself into a gasseous form. A fetus will or will not grow into a legally protected human being if left to its own devices. But nobody has to actively try to make it happen. Let's face it, women can try to influence the outcome, but the only time a woman has a choice in the matter is when it comes to terminating it. A woman cannot choose to have a child. She can choose to try to get pregnant, she can choose to allow a pregnancy to continue, she can even choose whether or not to give birth, but if the child misscarries, there's nothing a woman can do to prevent it.

See...? It's like arguing with a child that her teddy bear isn't a "living being". It's hard to rationally argue down an irrational point... Either you're smart enough and educated enough and capable enough of honest critical thinking and free enough of indoctrination that you can look at the vast weight of the evidence and recognize it as irrational, or you're not. Once she says "but teddy has a soul", you go ahead and try to prove her wrong. You can't. All you can do is sigh and say "You're wrong. You're a child." Nothing except growing up, gaining wisdom, education, and critical thinking skills, and outgrowing indoctrination will ever stop her from disagreeing and saying "your best argument is to simply say I'm wrong?"

Sound familiar?

Ah, but once again, there is a way to prove to the child that her teddy bear isn't a living being. Science has proven the difference between a living being and an innanimate object. Whether or not the child can understand it is the question. If the child argues about an intangible like a "soul" (I don't believe that they exist, but I'm open to the possiblity that they might. Since I can't prove it, I choose to disbelieve it), you can explain to the child, if you choose to, that the soul isn't connected to the body (which most religions have been saying for centuries, so there's a good chance the child will believe it) which validates her beliefs, without ignoring the facts. Only a parent who is ill-equipped to argue the point would just tell the child "You're wrong. I'm right. End of Discussion."

On attacking your position of "fetus as human being"... Even though you say, over and over, "I believe in your choice", your position of "fetus as a living, human being is radically dangerous.

Imagine someone pointing a loaded, charged handgun at your head, placing his finger directly on the trigger, and saying "Don't worry... I believe in your right to not be shot. I just wanna hold this here. Don't worry." Imagine yourself into that position... Now, how comfortable do you feel?

Actually, I've been in that exact situation before (he kept saying, "I don't want to shoot you, don't make me shoot you.", which implies that he had no interest in shooting me, or else he would have already done it, which in turn implies that he was respecting my right to not be shot). You're right, it wasn't comfortable, but it doesn't make any difference in the matter at hand. Saying "fetus=child" does not invalidate a woman's right to choose.

Each and every individual has the right to choose whether or not to bring a child into the world. That's why there's pills, condoms, jellies, creams and other various things that work to both prevent and encourage pregnancy. It takes two people to make that decision. A woman cannot have a child unless some man, somewhere, chooses to provide the sperm for her to do so. A man cannot have a child unless some woman, somewhere provides an egg. A woman also has to provide a place for the child to develop, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the same one that provided the egg.

If a woman chooses NOT to have a child, she has methods to protect herself from it happening. If those methods fail, she has the option of terminating the pregnancy. If a man chooses NOT to have a child, he can protect himself, but if it fails, he has no other options available to him.

My position is: Give both women and men the chance to make their voices heard. If the woman chooses abortion, she's off the hook. If the man chooses to waive his rights (and responsibilities), he's off the hook. But both sides have the chance to have a say. This should be done with a third party mediator to prevent it from devolving into screaming or violence and to offer information that may not have been available to either side that could facilitate a resolution.

Billy Barty Attack: It's incorrect to say I'm liable for murder, but it also might be justifiable homicide. This would be a case of self defense, cut and dried.

Not so, if the police do not believe that it is self-defense, you have to "prove" that it's self-defense in a court of law.

Male right to his genetic material: Actually, I've tried to steer the discussion away from the argument over whether an unborn fetus is a person, and to this subject at least twice now.

I didn't say it hadn't been offered, I'm saying that it wasn't being discussed. You tried to steer it, and it got derailed. I'd also like to point out that I never said it was you that took the topic away from that subject.

The male has no such right, for two legal reasons... First, unless he and the female were expressly engaged in a willful attempt to create a life, then he "discarded" the genetic material in question.

Also not true, unless he was actively trying to prevent pregnancy, he could have been inviting it. Men can even punch holes into their own condoms to "trick" women into getting pregnant. You're still arguing something you have to prevent from happening as if it was something that has to be made to happen. If you have sex, you have to try to prevent pregnancy from happening, if you don't it will or won't happen without you having any choice in the matter.

Second, the 'situation' created by the unintentional combination of his genetic material with hers is one that may inconvenience or endanger her, and is to be suffered only at her sole discretion. If something you own attacks me on my own legal turf, I have the legal right to defend myself, even if that means the destruction of your attacking property.

If we're going to argue like that, then a woman should have to prove that the fetus is dangerous to her health or inconvenient to her life before she is allowed to abort it. I'm legally allowed to own a big, mean-looking dog. I'm legally allowed to bring it into your house if you invite it in. The only time you get to kill it is if it attacks you. If it growls at you, it's not dangerous. If it shits on your carpet, it's not dangerous. You get to choose to never allow the dog back, but you don't get to choose to kill the dog just because it inconvenienced you. I'd prefer not to argue along these lines because some people will use it to try to remove a woman's right to choose.

I respect you, Honor, and your position, I just feel that you're ill-equipped (not unable) to defend it.

I thank you, and similarly respect (although perhaps "sympathize with" would be a more precise term) your feelings on the issue.

The reason I'm "ill-equipped" to defend against it, though, is simply and solely because your position is an emotional and spiritual one, and thus cannot be wholly contradicted with science and fact. ...Regardless of how attached you became to the idea of that child, and as much as I sympathize with that very real sense of loss, and as sorry as I may be to even have to say so, what was destroyed was not a human being, and not yours.

Once agian, my position has nothing to do with spirituality. I've argued with science and fact, it's your choice not to accept them.

[Honor]

I could use more carriage returns, but it's a writing style choice that is made more for personal aesthetic than ease of use.

Wait... Do I understand that correctly to say you prefer huge solid blocks of text to more standard paragraphs?

That's very interesting. Do you find them easier to read? Like most people, I tend to find them very difficult, bordering on impenetrable. To the extent where I will highlight (drag-select) text as I read to keep my place if I -have- to read them, but very often, simply find them not worth the effort it takes to wade through them.


On the fetus-child-person-llama endless thing...

Yeah... um... I could go into yet another point by point argument here... But I'm not going to.

One part of the problem is we're dealing with a subject that science and language isn't fully prepared to deal with yet. Laws vary on terminology from "person" to "human" to "human being" to "being"... We still struggle with the concepts of consciousness, sentience, agency, entity, and being.

You can go on and on about what the words "child" and "fetus" mean in every dictionary in the world, but (jebus, someone take a photo, you almost never catch me saying something like this) in this case, the dictionary definitions and 'accepted' meanings are pretty well fucked.

All these "accepted definitions" are born of eons of primitive and flawed ideas of how life works and what life is... And, even though, as you point out, you may not have used superstition as a direct point of argument, almost all of the definitions in almost all of these sources are based on thousands of years of superstition.

Whatever. I'm tired. An unborn child fetus llama whatever simply doesn't have that... Je ne sais quoi. They are not a person. They have no consciousness... No agency. No entity.


I realize you say you've posted the "scientific proof" that this is not so, and to be honest, I simply haven't read it. Between the giant impenetrable blocks of text, and the fact that I'm simply not reading most of LTG's posts, replies to him, or anyone else who's frankly being a boorish embarrassment to my side of the debate, means that I may have missed some citations, and I apologise... If you want to re-provide some links or concise arguments, I'll certainly consider them, but, quite frankly, it's outside the scope of my interest.

In other words, I don't care that much. It's not a field I need to read every paper in... I can comfortably roll with the scientific consensus on this one. The answers are just that obvious. An unborn fetus is part of the being of the host mother. Hell, our sentimental pretense to the contrary notwithstanding, even an infant below a certain threshold of intellectual development isn't an individual sentient being, any more than a halfway decent dog is.

But the simple fact remains. If the majority consensus of the scientific / medical community believed that a fetus had entity and agency, abortion would be illegal in most 'enlightened' countries.

[Honor]

This thread must be shut down. References to Nazi's and the Holocaust made their appearance about 6 posts upstream.



But what the heck.....



Honor,

I am puzzled that you claim that their can't be a moral based decision without an appeal to an "imaginary construct". (I infer you mean a religious based system)

I'll quote from the dictionary to prove that I can play annoying word games too.

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>



Now, as I recall from sociology class some years back, in sociology we defined a difference between ethical and moral. One was what your tribe wanted you to do and I forget what the exact definition of ethical was.


However, I will quote my best friend, "You Christians have LESS reason to behave in a moral and ethical manner than an atheist. God will always forgive you. I only have one shot, its really important I get it right the 1st time."

Much of philosophy aims to delineate a moral and ethical framework without invoking the "magical sky genie". Good Lord, wasn't 99% of Plato and nearly 100% of Kant exactly that?

You and your annoying word games.

Sorry... I missed this at first, then I kept getting derailed and sidetracked before I could answer it.

I think "moral" -vs- "ethical" is one of those areas where language, partially through popular misuse, could use some cleaning up.

I think "moral" implies "right" and "wrong" and other conceptual constructs that, for most people, rely on direction from an imaginary being... Although that usage is obviously far from universal.

I like a sense of the word "ethic-" that implies "accepted" or "fair" vs a sense of "moral" that implies "right/wrong".

Bleh. I'm so tired I have no idea if I'm even making sense.