Comic Genesis Forums

LeftTentacleGreen wrote:

MistressMaggie wrote:I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

Or to an artificial womb.

In the meantime, Abortion is not murder.

1. A fetus is NOT a child and a fetus is NOT a human being. It is a part of the female's body until it is carried to term and can live outside the human body. Until then, it is medically, little more than a parasite and it is a possession of that woman. If a lung or kidney or even a tonsil is brought out of a human being, it is a living human organism and will die outside the human body eventually. Letting a tonsil die is not murder. Removing a fetus is not murder either.

2. A woman's body is NOT the property of the superstitious dogma of obsolete objective moralists.

3. Life is NOT sacred. Human life is NOT sacred. If it was, hand guns and the death penalty would be illegal. Wars would definitely not be started by slacker conservatives looking for a way to feel macho while shedding other people's blood.

4. Human life does not start at conception. Human life starts, individually, as sperm and eggs - gametes which ARE alive and are specifically human life (otherwise, they could be used to impregnate other animals as well), but are disposed of every month through menstrual cycles for females or either nocturnal emissions or masturbation for males. So any boy who has had a wet dream or any girl who has had more than one period is, by the pro-birth definition, a serial killer. Pro-birthers (let's face it, they don't give a shit about the child once its born) likes to pretend human life begins at conception out of convenience for their argument only.

That's a great summary of the usual pro-choice belief system. As I said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't agree with all of those beliefs. These are my beliefs on the matter:

1. A fetus IS a child. A fetus is a child at its first stage of development (you can argue about sperm and eggs all you want, but if they don't come together, neither one is capable of making a child on their own). You stating that it has a parasitic relationship with the mother PROVES that it is a separate entity unto itself. A lung, a kidney or a tonsil are not parasites because they are PARTS of the body that have a purpose within that body and have been there since the body reached the stage of development that created them. A fetus is a completely SEPARATE being that is not inherently PART of the body because it has to specifically be CREATED during CONCEPTION and requires a completely separate person to be involved in its creation. After conception, the fetus temporarily requires another living being to provide it sustenence and protection so that it can develop. Then it no longer needs it's "parasitic link" to it's "host" and can survive on it's own. A tapeworm is a parasite that can live inside of a person and feed off of them for years, are you trying to imply that a tapeworm should be considered just another part of the body like a lung, kidney or tonsil? Of course not, the tapeworm is a SEPARATE entity just as a fetus is.

Even the law disagrees with you on this point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, are they charged with ONE or TWO murders? According to your beliefs, they should only be charged with one. But the law recognizes that the fetus is separate, yet dependant on the mother, so the killer is charged with TWO murders. The Scott Peterson trial is a recent, well-known example of this. The law just makes it okay for a mother to terminate the child if she doesn't want it, but punnishes someone who takes the life of a child that the mother DOES want. Men have been convicted of murder for causing their wives' miscarriages, the only difference between this and abortion is the consent of the mother. And no, I'm not trying to say that a man causing a woman's miscarriage is in any way something the law should tolerate.

2. Nobody said that a woman's body should be the property of any person, thing or belief system. My arguments are not about making a woman's body property. My arguments are that if the law is going to treat a fetus as property, then it should offer protection to the men who are 50% responsible for the creation of said property. If a man and a woman buy a house or a car or even a CD together and then split up, there are legal ways of protecting both parties interests in that property. Yet a fetus is considered in much the same way but only the mother's interests are protected.

3. Life IS sacred to those that hold it sacred. If you don't feel that a life is sacred, that doesn't mean that it isn't sacred to someone else. Whether or not a person considers a life or any life sacred is irrelevant unless they have a direct responsibility to or influence on that life. A pro-life activist's opinion doesn't matter because they have nothing to do with the lives they've sworn to protect. A pro-choice activist's opinion doesn't matter for the same reason. It is up to the two people involved in creating a life to decide if that life is sacred or not.

4. Human life DOES begin at conception. Your argument is flawed because sperm and eggs need to be brought TOGETHER to create life. When they come TOGETHER, that is CONCEPTION. Before conception, sperm and eggs are just like any cell or organ in your body, they are created to fulfill a specific function. Blood cells circulate oxygen through your body, brain cells send electrical impulses through your nervous system to generate thought, movement, etc., the liver filters toxins. Sperm are created to fertilize eggs and eggs are created to be fertilized by sperm, until that happens, they're just like any other cell or organ that is part of any other system in your body. They can be removed because they are PART of that body. Once the sperm and the egg come together, an entirely NEW BEING is created. Sure, at first it's just a collection of cells, but they are different and separate from the people who contributed the genetic material that was used in its creation. As the fetus develops, it becomes more ready to be separated from the mother, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the same, separate being whether it's newly concieved or 12 years old.

All of this may make it appear that I'm not actually pro-choice, especially since some of my feelings mirror those of the pro-lifers. But my arguments are NOT to remove the option of abortion. Abortion should be available to those that want or need it. My arguments are that there are TWO people needed to create a life, yet only ONE of those people involved has any legal options when it comes to the life that is created.

To go back to the issue of protection and birth-control for a second; a woman has the means at her disposal to prevent herself from becomming pregnant, just as a man has the means to prevent a woman that he has sex with from becomming pregnant. The responsibility falls on BOTH of them to ensure that protection is in place if they do not want a child. If neither side exercises those options, or the protection in place fails, then it should be up to BOTH parties how the situation is handled. If BOTH agree that it should be terminated, fine. If BOTH parties agree that it should be kept, fine. The issue arrises when BOTH parties cannot come to an agreement. That is when the law should provide options that protect BOTH parties' interests in the matter. As of right now, it does not do that. A woman can terminate a pregnancy without the man's input. The same woman can keep the child and then force the man to pay support for it, also without his input. It is not fair or just to have laws in place that simultaneously FORCE responsibility on men and REMOVE responsibility from women. That is NOT "equal rights".

lesotheron wrote:

Even the law disagrees with you on this point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, are they charged with ONE or TWO murders? According to your beliefs, they should only be charged with one. But the law recognizes that the fetus is separate, yet dependant on the mother, so the killer is charged with TWO murders.

Ahem. That depends on where you happen to be. As far as I know, there are very few places where this is the case.

MistressMaggie wrote:

lesotheron wrote:

Even the law disagrees with you on this point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, are they charged with ONE or TWO murders? According to your beliefs, they should only be charged with one. But the law recognizes that the fetus is separate, yet dependant on the mother, so the killer is charged with TWO murders.

Ahem. That depends on where you happen to be. As far as I know, there are very few places where this is the case.

How right you are! A much better way of putting that would have been: "Even the law CAN disagree with you, depending on where you live." Thank you for helping me make my point as clear (and accurate) as possible.

lesotheron wrote:Ah, but that's the problem. You can't legally define a fetus as "life" and still protect a woman's right to choose. From your perspective, a fetus is the potential of life. From my perspective, a fetus IS life (unlike most people, this doesn't change my support of a woman's right to choose).

No... Sorry. It's not that I can't legally define it as a (human) life, and still protect her "right of refusal" so much as that I can't legally (or scientifically) define a fetus as a (human) life and be intellectually honest. It's a life in the same sense as an apple seed is a life... It's life in the same sense as a tumor is a life. It's living tissue... Not a "being".

And, I'd have no problem with defining it as a human life and still maintaining the woman's right to terminate it. Maybe I'm just a bitch like that, but it's her body. Even if we define it as a human life, it's existing inside her body, and should do so only at her sufferance.

I'm under no legal obligation to give up a kidney, bone marrow, or even a blood transfusion to save a real human being. I don't even have to jump into a cold river or give an icky person mouth-to-mouth to save them, if I don't want to. The idea that I should ever be legally required to endanger or even inconvenience myself to save a potential human being is ethically repugnant.

You can say "From my perspective, a fetus IS (human) life"... Fine, I can say "From my perspective, my dog is human life." Our strong feelings don't trump the scientific reality that we're both wrong.


The Male Genetic Contribution Equals 50% 'Ownership'...

Thinking about this brought to mind, for whatever reason, an ownership issue often used in material property disputes and evidence custody standards...

Consider the possibility that, unless you're in a relationship where both of you are having sex with the direct intent of attempting procreation, I'd say it would be easy enough to argue that you "discarded" that genetic material, and she "picked it up"... And thus can do whatever she damned well pleases with it.

This meets both circumstances... Where the male demands she keep the pregnancy to term, because it's his "baby", and also the more rare instance where the male argues that she shouldn't be allowed to create a baby by using his genetic material without his express consent for that purpose in particular.

lesotheron wrote:

LeftTentacleGreen wrote:

MistressMaggie wrote:I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

Or to an artificial womb.

In the meantime, Abortion is not murder.

1. A fetus is NOT a child and a fetus is NOT a human being, etc, etc.

That's a great summary of the usual pro-choice belief system. As I said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't agree with all of those beliefs. These are my beliefs on the matter:

Thank you, no. I reject the premise of your statement... The standard assertion of those who seek to base policy on "belief" is to classify the opposing view as "belief" as well, thus placing it on equal factual footing.

A position which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the best scientific evidence available is not a "belief system".

lesotheron wrote:1. A fetus IS a child. A fetus is a child at its first stage of development...

No... A fetus is a blastocyst at it's first stage of development.

lesotheron wrote:(you can argue about sperm and eggs all you want, but if they don't come together, neither one is capable of making a child on their own). You stating that it has a parasitic relationship with the mother PROVES that it is a separate entity unto itself.

By this logic, a malignant neoplasm is a "separate entity unto itself".

lesotheron wrote:Even the law disagrees with you on this point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, are they charged with ONE or TWO murders? According to your beliefs, they should only be charged with one. But the law recognizes that the fetus is separate, yet dependant on the mother, so the killer is charged with TWO murders.

Legally speaking, in the jurisdictions where this is true, this is nothing more than the first step in one of several attempted end-runs by the right around Roe v. Wade... On another front, they are financing research pushing back further and further the age at which the premature fetus can survive outside the body.

Their near total disregard for actual, living babies gives the lie to their positions, of course... They're not interested in saving babies, they're interested in removing any "relief" from the god-ordained "consequences" of committing the sin of fornication.

That having been said, the legal argument for the double murder standard need not be that you are actually taking two lives... But rather that, since the woman cannot be asked directly, it's most reasonable we assume she intended to carry the pregnancy to term... Thus you have killed a person and a potential person. Robbing someone of future potential has a well established history of being convictable.

lesotheron wrote: 1. A fetus IS a child. *presumptuous bullshit* Of course not, the tapeworm is a SEPARATE entity just as a fetus is.

And your beliefs are wrong. A separate life form does not constitute a fully living human being. A single cell is not a fully functioning human being and if a fetus can not live outside the womb then it is NOT a human being.

A parasite is a life form that must feed off its host to survive. That's it. it may be a separate life form, but it doesn't deserve to be given any individual rights beyond that. A parasite's potential to become a child is strictly irrelevant. Until it is carried to term, it is only a parasite with a value that can only be given to it by its carrier.

If a fetus is a child why don't they have funerals for miscarriages? Why isn't a death certificate signed?

Even the law disagrees with you on this point. If someone kills a pregnant woman, are they charged with ONE or TWO murders?

If conception marks the legal creation of the child, then why doesn't the law subscribe a social security number as soon as the pregnancy is discovered?

God based precedent don't interest me. They only exist as a reminder as to how stupid people can be. Laws can be changed and they will be as soon as science kills god.

By the way, when conjoined twins are born and they pose a significant risk to one another, the parents and the doctors can operate to save the one they feel has the greater risk of survival. The other is discarded as a life form, but not a human. Medically, it is a parasite. Legally, its simply scraping away the bad parts that no one wants.

If a man and a woman buy a house or a car or even a CD together and then split up, there are legal ways of protecting both parties interests in that property. Yet a fetus is considered in much the same way but only the mother's interests are protected.

Again the fetus only has as much value as its carrier places upon it, and since its not your body, then who the hell are you to decide what kind of values that carrier should place on its parasite?

3. Life IS sacred to those that hold it sacred. If you don't feel that a life is sacred, that doesn't mean that it isn't sacred to someone else. Whether or not a person considers a life or any life sacred is irrelevant unless they have a direct responsibility to or influence on that life. A pro-life activist's opinion doesn't matter because they have nothing to do with the lives they've sworn to protect. A pro-choice activist's opinion doesn't matter for the same reason. It is up to the two people involved in creating a life to decide if that life is sacred or not.

Cold viruses are sacred? Mosquitoes are sacred? Lice is sacred? Botulism is sacred? Tapeworms are sacred? Cockroaches are sacred?

I have a direct influence on the athlete's foot between my toes, and I have no other responsibility than to eliminate that which I don't want living within my body.

I'm going to bold three parts from your arguments here.

Life IS sacred to those that hold it sacred.

If you don't feel that a life is sacred, that doesn't mean that it isn't sacred to someone else.

Nobody said that a woman's body should be the property of any person, thing or belief system.

And you don't see a major fucking contradiction here?

I mean, what you're saying here is if a woman decided her fetus is not a child, then its obviously up to someone else to decide that it should be considered a child and her body must belong to that "child" until it is carried to term - and that external person's beliefs should supersede a woman's right to her own body.

Apparently, according to you, a woman's body is only her own until she does something with it that someone else doesn't like.

Its the same bullshit with Euthanasia. Apparently its ok for a solider to go out and die in service to his country (or usually in service to a politician), but if a guy wants to end the pain in his own life, he can't do that? Where the fuck do you people get off telling a person he or she has to make choices regarding his or her own body by your personal aesthetics?

Before conception, sperm and eggs are just like any cell or organ in your body, they are created to fulfill a specific function.

Just like any other cell or organ, sperm and eggs are alive but can not live beyond the shell of the human being for more than a few moments without being fed by that human being. They are human life. Human blood cells are human life. Human bone cells are human life. Human sperm is human life. Human eggs are human life. Fetus cells are human life, but like blood cells, bone cells, brain cells, and nerve cells, they are not equal to full human life.

If a life form does not have a specific function to that body and yet they need it to survive, THAT makes that life form a parasite - just like the fetus.

that is CONCEPTION

I don't CARE what you label this specific reaction. Nothing in that term means anyone has the right to decide what a woman does with her body. Ever.

Two living human cells chemically react and create a parasite with only the potential (which you conveniently confuse with inevitability) to be a human being. There is no god, no angels, and no soul added into the process. So get over yourself.

They can be removed because they are PART of that body. Once the sperm and the egg come together, an entirely NEW BEING is created.

No, it has the POTENTIAL to be a human being. If it can't survive outside the human body, it is not a full human yet. By this bullshit definition, once the correct chemical reaction is achieved, CANCER is a NEW BEING created by the human body.

My arguments are that there are TWO people needed to create a life, yet only ONE of those people involved has any legal options when it comes to the life that is created.

That's because only ONE person carries the fetus to term. Not TWO. When men can carry the fetus from place to place in its own body for half the term, then they can come here and whine about equal rights.

But my arguments are NOT to remove the option of abortion.

This is why the first words out of your mouth were "A fetus IS a child." Not an opinion you could actually substantiate, but one you could only just emphasize with your personal aesthetics.

This pro-birth movement is such bullshit. Not only does a woman with an unwanted pregnancy have to deal with an internal parasite, she also has to deal with external parasites who want to feed off her body to validate their own spiritually concocted bullshit. Is it any shock that in our society that parasites should work to protect other parasites.

Its too bad there isn't an operation that could remove those life-sucking freaks from her body as well.

Honor wrote: The Male Genetic Contribution Equals 50% 'Ownership'...

Thinking about this brought to mind, for whatever reason, an ownership issue often used in material property disputes and evidence custody standards...

Consider the possibility that, unless you're in a relationship where both of you are having sex with the direct intent of attempting procreation, I'd say it would be easy enough to argue that you "discarded" that genetic material, and she "picked it up"... And thus can do whatever she damned well pleases with it.

This meets both circumstances... Where the male demands she keep the pregnancy to term, because it's his "baby", and also the more rare instance where the male argues that she shouldn't be allowed to create a baby by using his genetic material without his express consent for that purpose in particular.

I would agree that she can do what she wants with discarded genetic material but that would then mean that the male should have no legal financial obligation if he wants her to have an abortion and she wants to have a baby. My personal feeling is that the legal financial burden for the male in the case of an unwanted pregnancy is either half the cost of abortion if they are in agreement or half the cost of the medical bills for the duration of the pregnancy deemed to terminate upon discharge from the hospital of the baby. Note I put legal in bold. Do I think most people would consider him something of a schmuck for not wanting to help raise the child, certainly, but if it's unwanted unplanned (ie the condom broke, or they were just too horny/ignorant to take steps to prevent pregnancy) then legally his only financial obligation is up to discharge from hospital or abortion clinic.

Honor wrote: No... Sorry. It's not that I can't legally define it as a (human) life, and still protect her "right of refusal" so much as that I can't legally (or scientifically) define a fetus as a (human) life and be intellectually honest. It's a life in the same sense as an apple seed is a life... It's life in the same sense as a tumor is a life. It's living tissue... Not a "being".

And, I'd have no problem with defining it as a human life and still maintaining the woman's right to terminate it. Maybe I'm just a bitch like that, but it's her body. Even if we define it as a human life, it's existing inside her body, and should do so only at her sufferance.

I'm under no legal obligation to give up a kidney, bone marrow, or even a blood transfusion to save a real human being. I don't even have to jump into a cold river or give an icky person mouth-to-mouth to save them, if I don't want to. The idea that I should ever be legally required to endanger or even inconvenience myself to save a potential human being is ethically repugnant.

You can say "From my perspective, a fetus IS (human) life"... Fine, I can say "From my perspective, my dog is human life." Our strong feelings don't trump the scientific reality that we're both wrong.


The Male Genetic Contribution Equals 50% 'Ownership'...

Thinking about this brought to mind, for whatever reason, an ownership issue often used in material property disputes and evidence custody standards...

Consider the possibility that, unless you're in a relationship where both of you are having sex with the direct intent of attempting procreation, I'd say it would be easy enough to argue that you "discarded" that genetic material, and she "picked it up"... And thus can do whatever she damned well pleases with it.

This meets both circumstances... Where the male demands she keep the pregnancy to term, because it's his "baby", and also the more rare instance where the male argues that she shouldn't be allowed to create a baby by using his genetic material without his express consent for that purpose in particular.

I've sectioned my responses off to make the upcoming "wall of text" easier on the eyes. Please read at your own risk.

a) When I said "You can't legally define a fetus as "life" and still protect a woman's right to choose", I didn't mean you or any other individual specifically. I was merely referencing the fact that if a fetus were legally defined as "life", then abortion could legally be considered murder (as shown by the popular right-to-life association).

b) Regarding being intellectually honest: An apple seed IS life because an apple tree is life and the seed is its first stage of development. If a man owns an apple orchard and plants apple seeds to expand his operation, does he not have legal recourse if someone does something to prevent those seeds from fully developing? Does he not have a right to protect those seeds to ensure that they do develop? (That may seem like more of an argument concerning property instead of life, but it is the apple tree's life that provides his income, so he has the right and responsability to protect that life) A tumor is completely different because I'm talking about something that is the first stage of something that is also considered life. A tumor is not a stage in development of anything except a larger tumor, and since even large tumors are not considered "life", I don't feel that it applies here. Although, if you would like to discuss whether or not tumors should be considered "life", I would be interested to see the arguments that are brought forth, but we're probably already both in agreement about the subject. That to me is intellectually honest.

c) If you're a bitch for feeling like that, then I'm a right bastard because I DO feel that abortion is murder, but I don't have any problems with it being legal. Once again, my position is not against abortion in any way. My position is that the man involved in the situation should have a say.

d) You are not under any obligation to donate anything, but there are places in the world where you would be under an obligation to assist someone in need (unless it would put you in harm's way). Those "Good Samaritan Laws" are not very popular, but they do exist.

e) Obviously, I would never imply that a woman should be forced to do something that would endanger her, but since women have been bearing children for many centuries, and the majority of those pregnancies do not endanger the mothers, I'm going to argue this point purely on the "inconvenience" aspect. Sure, it would be terrible to legally require someone to do something that is inconvenient. We know this because most of us live in places that DO have laws that inconvenience us. Speed limits can be inconvenient (actually, most driving laws can be inconvenient). Extensive searches at the airport are inconvenient. Having to pay child support for a child you didn't want, have no interest in or have no ability to be a part of the life of is inconvenient. Some people may even find the fact that they can't steal inconvenient. But those laws do exist and you and I both are legally obligated to comply with them. If we do not, we face the consequenses.

f) The "scientific reality" you point out works more in my favor than it does yours in that particular arguement. A dog would still be life, but not human life because humans and dogs are completely different species. A fetus is human life because it is not only the same species, it is the earlier stage of development for that species. But I'll also point out that the "human" part was not included in my original statement.

g) The Male Genetic Contribution Equals 50% 'Ownership'...
I have no problems with anything you've said in this section because it is true. But that is also my whole point. It would be very easy for you to argue that point because there is no legal way for a man to pose a counter-argument. Imagine for a moment that both sides get the chance to argue their positions. A man could argue that by having sex with him, the woman was agreeing by implication to bearing his child, either by not ensuring her own protection or by continuing on even though the method of protection she used could possibly fail (and since ANY form of protection can fail, and anyone who uses protection can be reasonably assumed to be aware of that fact, it could make for some interesting legal battles). But those arguments can't be heard because there are no legal avenues in which to bring them up.

*EDIT*
I would also like to respond to the other post you made in regarding my comments, but I am unable to at this time. I reserve the right to respond when I am able.

LeftTentacleGreen wrote:*A large amount of angry raving*

First off, my beliefs have nothing to do with any religious or spiritual beliefs, so I'd ask you kindly to stop spewing anti-religious bile at me like I'm some bible-thumper who has only come here to "save" you. I can understand why you might be confused since I did argue that life CAN be considered sacred, although I think you missed the fact that never once did I say that I consider life to be sacred. However, unlike you, I can accept the FACT that some people consider life to be sacred, and that they have the right to feel that way.

I'd also ask you kindly to stop lumping me together with "pro-birth", "pro-life", "parasites" or anyone else that you seem to despise for daring to disagree with you. I am a singular person, voicing opinions that are MINE. If other people share them, that's their business and it in no way forms any link between myself and them. If you disagree with something they believe, do not assume that I believe it just because I happen to agree with them on something else.

I've already said this many times, but since you don't seem to have gotten the message during any of its previous incarnations, I'll state it slowly and in big, bold letters. I AM PRO-CHOICE!!! That means that I believe in the choice to HAVE or ABORT the child at the discretion of the PARENTS. The only time I want to have a say in whether or not a child is born is when it's MY CHILD. In those circumstances, the MOTHER and the FATHER should both be involved. That is my belief. I do NOT believe that all pregnancies should be brought to term. I do not believe that all life is sacred and that God gives us each a soul at conception. So those arguments (and others that you've made) have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I've said.

I did however like the argument that you posed about the athlete's foot. Not only was it light and humorous in contrast to the venomous attacks that seemed to pop up frequently in the rest of your response, it also allows me to make my point even more clearly. Since the Athlete's Foot is on you, nobody should have a right to tell you that you can't destroy it, right? Fine, I'll agree with you totally. You have the right to go out and destroy any FUNGUS that belongs to yourself or anyone who allows you to destroy it. But since you did not have any part in the creation of any other fungus, you have no right to destroy anyone else's fungus. It is up to them to decide whether or not it should be destroyed. Is that fair enough for you?

I am however bothered by your constant comparisons of fetuses (feti?) to parasites and fungus. A fetus is NOT a parasite. A parasite is a parasite and will always be a parasite. A fetus is only a parasite if both of its parents were parasites and it can never be anything but a parasite. A HUMAN fetus is a HUMAN. A DOG fetus is a DOG. Are humans and dogs considered parasites (well, they are to some, but that's a different argument entirely)? The only difference is the stage of development. During a specific period of its development, ANY mammal must rely on it's mother for protection and nourishment. By your reasoning, why aren't we allowed to abort children who are under the age of say two years old? They're no longer inside the womb, but they lack the ability to sustain their own life. They require another person to feed them and protect them and could still be considered to have parasitic tendencies. Hell, let's take it even farther. Any person past the age of 18 that still lives at home can be aborted. They're obviously not capable of supporting themselves, so they have no more rights than any other parasite. And how about anyone who is handicapped and requires assistance to live their lives? Shouldn't someone be able to abort them so they don't have to be inconvenienced by providing for them?

This entire argument is about degrees. At what stage is a fetus an individual? At what stage should it be able to be aborted? People all over have been arguing this for years. I stated my BELIEFS about it, but those beliefs are just that. Just as your beliefs are only beliefs. You can throw out any amount of "scientific evidence" you want but the only FACT involved in that evidence is: When is the fetus VIABLE for life outside the womb (and even those "facts" seem to be disputed regularly)? The arguments about everything else are all opinion. Does a fetus have any rights if it is not VIABLE? There are no facts that can determine this, it is ONLY opinion. When does "life" start? Once again, there are no facts, only opinion (some people believe that life only begins when the fetus is viable, some feel that life begins at birth, some feel that life begins at conception, none are right or wrong because life has different definitions to different people, therefore when life begins is also open to interpretation).

I also don't agree with your definition of potential vs. inevitability. You seem to feel that you're right because you believe that there's only a chance that a fetus will develop enough for you to consider it worthy of being recognized. You also seem to feel that I am wrong because I believe that EVERY fetus becomes a healthy, happy full grown productive adult if left alone. On both counts, you are seriously mistaken. A fetus growing into a VIABLE (by your opinion) life, is the NORM. There are many things that can cause a fetus to be miscarried, malformed, handicapped or otherwise not "perfect", but you'll find that the MAJORITY of fetuses created become VIABLE children that you would actually agree with me on their status as children, UNLESS something interferes to change it. It is not potential and it is not inevitability, it is the NORM. It is what is most likely to happen unless something forces the outcome.

I've answered most of the points that I felt bothered me enough to respond to, but none of this is central to the argument I've been making. My position is that the man involved in any pregnancy should have a SAY in what happens to the "fetus". Not that he can FORCE the woman to carry it. Not that he can COMPEL the woman to abort it. Only that he have a legally protected platform to offer his opinion on the matter and have his opinion be taken into account before the decision is final.

Here's a possible solution to the problem, let's see what you guys think of it. A woman becomes pregnant. When she either goes in for prenatal care or an abortion, she meets with a counselor. This counselor speaks to both the mother and the father, separately and together to gather their opinions on how this pregnancy should be handled. If they cannot come to an agreement, the counselor can mediate the disagreement to try to reach a resolution. The woman has final say on the matter of abortion. If it is aborted, she is aware of the man's opinion, but he cannot compel her to keep it. If she carries it to term, she is fully aware of the man's feelings and he is under no further obligation if he does not wish it. Obvously, if the man has no interest in attending the couselling, he is waiving his right to be heard and cannot choose to exercise that right at a later time.

This way, if the man WANTS to make his voice heard, he can and nobody can deny his right. The woman still has total freedom of choice, but she can make that choice after both sides have stated their wishes. Not only that, but the woman is protected from any possible attempts to coerce, intimidate or force a decision, because there is a neutral third party involved to make sure that can't happen.

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.

Honor wrote: ever even knowing she was infected.

Honor,

That is loaded language. Please refrain from calling a pregnancy an infection, it doesn't move the debate forward in a positive manner. I joking call pregnancy an STD, but not when discussing something like this.

As for your poll, I didn't answer because I honestly did NOT understand the options.

I agree that men can really get the shaft. The law is essentially written as if men and the bad guys and women are saints. If the man is the good guy, he has an uphill battle. On the other hand, if the man is a deadbeat, because of the way biology works, the woman WILL be the one stuck with the problem.

Its a sticky wicket. 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. Then again, she might turn out to be gay and I won't have to worry about pregnancy. If she isn't gay, I'll make sure she has a condom in her purse and a mean left hook. Between the two, and my willingness to hunt the boy down and bury him, well.... its the best I can do.

As fas as I am concerned.... humans have souls. At some point after conception, but before delivery, the dividing cell is imbued with a soul and becomes a human. When? I have no idea. I am therefore opposed to an abortion in anything but the 1st month (you know... that whole dividing cell time). I however do not think it is right to inflict my believe on other people. The gripping hand is, I am ALWAYS going oppose something heinous like partial birth abortion. I don't see so anyone who is against murder can be for that. The OTHER gripping hand is that the anti-abortion crowd uses partial birth abortions as a wedge to get started down the path of banning all abortions 1 small step at a time.

The problem is both sides in the abortion debate are disingenuous almost all the time.

MistressMaggie wrote:I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

Even if such a procedure existed, nobody would give a shit.

There are already thousands of fertilized eggs frozen in huge containers across the United States, possibly millions worldwide. They are usually frozen indefinitely (which can lead to cell deterioration) or just discarded the way any biohazard would be discarded. I do not see droves of willing women volunteering to take these "children" to term, and I don't think it would be any more likely if you tried transplanting a more developed embryo.

hydrajak wrote:

Honor wrote: ever even knowing she was infected.

That is loaded language. Please refrain from calling a pregnancy an infection, it doesn't move the debate forward in a positive manner. I joking call pregnancy an STD, but not when discussing something like this.

::kicks at the dirt:: Welll.... I agree it's aggressive and argumentative and probably even inflammatory... But I disagree that it's any more inaccurate or inflammatory than referring to a fetus as a human being.

hydrajak wrote:As for your poll, I didn't answer because I honestly did NOT understand the options.

Sorry... Obviously, I thought it was clear enough, when combined with the opening question entry.

In the most simple terms, legally, ethically, if a woman has full and total right to decide whether or not she's going to be involved in and bound by an accidental pregnancy, should the male also not have the right to decide whether or not he's going to be involved in and bound by an accidental pregnancy...?

hydrajak wrote:As fas as I am concerned.... humans have souls. At some point after conception, but before delivery, the dividing cell is imbued with a soul and becomes a human.

I doubt you could argue against the statement that it's obviously questionable to defend on a position based on an irrational (not an insult, just using the actual definition of the word "irrational") assumption that cannot be proven, carries with it no evidence, and is not agreed upon (although this last is far less relevant than the first two conditions).

It's not significantly different from the argument that people of one race should be afforded special privileges or penalties because God "obviously" favors or disfavors them.

hydrajak wrote:The problem is both sides in the abortion debate are disingenuous almost all the time.

I can't agree. Perhaps if we say "often"... But I challenge anyone to show something disingenuous in my position, and I don't think it can be shown that my position is substantially different from that of most pro-choice people (although I am often tempted to step over the line and say, as LTG does earlier, that I am actually "pro abortion", we'll leave that be for now.)

My position, for the record, is that a fetus is not a human being, and thus it's disposal should legally be at the full discretion of the carrier. A human being is a living, breathing, sentient being that exists biologically separately.

swordsman3003 wrote:

MistressMaggie wrote:I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

Even if such a procedure existed, nobody would give a shit.

There are already thousands of fertilized eggs frozen in huge containers across the United States, possibly millions worldwide. They are usually frozen indefinitely (which can lead to cell deterioration) or just discarded the way any biohazard would be discarded. I do not see droves of willing women volunteering to take these "children" to term, and I don't think it would be any more likely if you tried transplanting a more developed embryo.

we were talking about a situation in which a man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not. I'm not talking about people who just randomly decide that they want to give birth to a random embryo.

MistressMaggie wrote:

swordsman3003 wrote:

MistressMaggie wrote:I want to see the day when a procedure exists to transplant a fetus from an unwilling woman to a surrogate.

...babycicles abound...

we were talking about a situation in which a man wants to keep the baby and the woman does not. I'm not talking about people who just randomly decide that they want to give birth to a random embryo.

I'd have to agree that the world would be... well, if not better, at least a far more interesting place, if fetuses could be transplanted into male bodies to be carried to term and then born by c-section.

lesotheron wrote:e) Obviously, I would never imply that a woman should be forced to do something that would endanger her, but since women have been bearing children for many centuries, and the majority of those pregnancies do not endanger the mothers, I'm going to argue this point purely on the "inconvenience" aspect.

Bull. For the majority of human history, childbirth has been among the leading causes of death in women; human heads are so large that it is incredibly difficult to push one through the pelvis. That is why human skulls are segmented at birth: the skull parts slide together to get the head through the birth canal. Why the hell would humans evolve such a bizarre and dangerous initial form? A shattered skull? Because otherwise women die giving birth.

lesotheron wrote: Sure, it would be terrible to legally require someone to do something that is inconvenient. We know this because most of us live in places that DO have laws that inconvenience us. Speed limits can be inconvenient (actually, most driving laws can be inconvenient). Extensive searches at the airport are inconvenient. Having to pay child support for a child you didn't want, have no interest in or have no ability to be a part of the life of is inconvenient. Some people may even find the fact that they can't steal inconvenient. But those laws do exist and you and I both are legally obligated to comply with them. If we do not, we face the consequenses.

Yes.....all laws are an inconvinience. The reason why a law exists at all is that some lawmaker thought that people would be likely enoughto commit a certain act that there needed to be legal reprecussions for commiting it.

It is not "terrible" to legally require anybody to do something inconvinient; that is the basis of law, requiring you to do inconvinient things and preventing others from doing inconvinient things to you.

That being said, requiring somebody to carry a baby (I am not going to list horrors of pregnancy) is not on par with requiring somebody "not to steal."

lesotheron wrote: f) The "scientific reality" you point out works more in my favor than it does yours in that particular arguement. A dog would still be life, but not human life because humans and dogs are completely different species. A fetus is human life because it is not only the same species, it is the earlier stage of development for that species. But I'll also point out that the "human" part was not included in my original statement.

And a fetus is an earlier stage of human development the same way a cumstain is an earlier stage of human development. A fertilized egg or a blastocyst has no more ability for self-sustenance.

lesotheron wrote:By your reasoning, why aren't we allowed to abort children who are under the age of say two years old? They're no longer inside the womb, but they lack the ability to sustain their own life. They require another person to feed them and protect them and could still be considered to have parasitic tendencies. Hell, let's take it even farther. Any person past the age of 18 that still lives at home can be aborted. They're obviously not capable of supporting themselves, so they have no more rights than any other parasite. And how about anyone who is handicapped and requires assistance to live their lives? Shouldn't someone be able to abort them so they don't have to be inconvenienced by providing for them?

*cough* read Honor's posts.

lesotheron wrote:This entire argument is about degrees. At what stage is a fetus an individual?

Never.

lesotheron wrote:At what stage should it be able to be aborted?

Perhaps the very most I'd be willing to concede is to pull out the fetus, and see if it can live without resources from it's mother's body. If it doesn't live, then that's what stage it should have been able to be aborted.

lesotheron wrote: People all over have been arguing this for years.

And people have been argueing for years "which came first, chicken or egg?" Science tells us the answer: eggs. Eggs evolved long before chickens.

More poigniant: people still debate evolution. I don't give a rat's ass about how long something has been debated.

Just because people have argued about things in the past, doesn't mean that the answer is "up in the air" like some kind of coinflip.

lesotheron wrote: I stated my BELIEFS about it, but those beliefs are just that. Just as your beliefs are only beliefs.

What's this bullshit about all beliefs being equal? My belief is that a cabal of space porcupines is beaming sinister instructions to the president's brain. You believe that there is not. WELL I GUESS WE CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER SINCE BOTH OF THESE ARE BELIEFS.

lesotheron wrote: You can throw out any amount of "scientific evidence" you want but the only FACT involved in that evidence is:

Are you questioning whether the evidence is scientific, or whether scientific evidence is relevant to our discussion? I seriously have to ask this question because plenty of people don't consider scientific evidence to have any value.

lesotheron wrote: When is the fetus VIABLE for life outside the womb (and even those "facts" seem to be disputed regularly)? The arguments about everything else are all opinion.

No. That is a bunch of fucking bullshit. Trying to reduce everything to opinions and beliefs is a polite way to say "I will never change my mind."

several scientific or legal questions that we are arguing (FYI not opinions or beliefs):
*is a fetus a human life
*is it constitutional to require a man to support a child he didn't want
*is it legal to require a woman to bring any fetus to term

There are probably more.

lesotheron wrote: Does a fetus have any rights if it is not VIABLE? There are no facts that can determine this, it is ONLY opinion. When does "life" start? Once again, there are no facts, only opinion (some people believe that life only begins when the fetus is viable, some feel that life begins at birth, some feel that life begins at conception, none are right or wrong because life has different definitions to different people, therefore when life begins is also open to interpretation).

A fetus has little if any rights, regardless of viability.

lesotheron wrote:I also don't agree with your definition of potential vs. inevitability. You seem to feel that you're right because you believe that there's only a chance that a fetus will develop enough for you to consider it worthy of being recognized. You also seem to feel that I am wrong because I believe that EVERY fetus becomes a healthy, happy full grown productive adult if left alone.

She seems to believe that because she does believe it. And she believes it because it's a fact, monsieur. In fact, many pregnancies are naturally terminated because the embryo never implants in the uterus. The total number may never be known because a woman can't distinguish between a period and this natural abortion.

lesotheron wrote: On both counts, you are seriously mistaken. A fetus growing into a VIABLE (by your opinion) life, is the NORM.

On this count, you are seriously mistaken. A fetus growing attaining 9 months of development before being born may be nature ideal but it is certainly not the norm.

lesotheron wrote: There are many things that can cause a fetus to be miscarried, malformed, handicapped or otherwise not "perfect", but you'll find that the MAJORITY of fetuses created become VIABLE children that you would actually agree with me on their status as children, UNLESS something interferes to change it. It is not potential and it is not inevitability, it is the NORM. It is what is most likely to happen unless something forces the outcome.

First of all, this isn't about the fetus, its potential of being malformed or whatever you are going on about. It's not about the embryo being perfect or ideal or anything like that. Even in perfectly ideal circumstance, it is still not a person, a human, or anything like that.

You, sir, will find that there is no such thing as any "majority" of fetuses making it to term.

And the is this I read? You have a self contradicting comment! "It's not potential and inevitability, it is the NORM," which by the way is followed by "it is what is most likely. Well, fuck your shit; The NORM is what is the most likely thing to potentially happen!! You can't have a norm without "potential."

Your last paragraph and incoherent and pointless. I can't even decide how to respond logically.

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.

swordsman3003: You make one very good point in your post that I'd like to address. I will not change my mind. Just as you will not change your mind. I am not asking you to change your mind. I am not asking Honor to change her mind. I am not asking anyone to change their mind. I am discussing my beliefs and how they relate to the beliefs of the people who respond.

I have been attacked and insulted because I believe something different from certain people. I have been told that my beliefs have no basis in fact, when I never implied that they were. I have been told that the oposing viewpoint is based around fact and scientific evidence, yet no facts or scientific evidence have been provided to back up these statements. I have been told that I have no right to my opinion.

I take back all of my previous statements about being pro-choice. While I still believe that abortion should be legal and that the CHOICE should be available, I no longer want anyone to think that I support, endorse or condone a group that is just as closed-minded, hypocritical and openly hostile to different beliefs as their opponents in the issue. As far as I'm concerned if you're pro-life or pro-choice, you're probably just another blowhard whose vision is obscured by their own colon.

Honor: None of those statements are directed at you (except where I specifically state that I'm not asking you to change your opinion). Although I do disagree with you, the discussion between you and I has not degenerated to the level of some of the other responses I've recieved. If you would like to continue this discussion intelligently, I would be willing to do so. I would, however, like to ask you to provide the facts and scientific evidence that you have referenced previously so that I may better understand your beliefs (once I see the facts and evidence that you are using, I'll be willing to refer to it as your position, even though a position is heavily grounded in beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that two opposing positions can exist simultaneously).

lynch wrote: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.

*claps*

lynch wrote: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.