Only one person can carry the child. Only one person will deal with the health risks, the discomfort, the permanent bodily changes to carry that child. If the fetus could be transplanted to the man- this might make some sense. But it can’t. When you have sex you are both aware a baby might result. You are both aware there are ways to terminate the pregnancy but no feasible way to transfer it. The woman decides what to do with her body while the fetus is in her body. Once it is born- both parents have certain rights and responsibilities. And what about rape? If a woman decides to keep a baby when she is raped and the rapist said “nah. I don’t want a kid...” He’s the ONLY one who consented to the sex and the potential consequences- he KNEW when he raped her a baby was a possibility- does he have no responsibility? Likewise- should the woman decide to terminate the baby of her rapist- should she be forced to carry and raise his child that she never even had a say in making?
This logic is faulty. But looking at consensual sex- Children can happen when there is sex. There is a legal agreement between two people having sex that both are RESPONSIBLE for any child that is BORN because both knowingly did something that COULD create a child. By this logic to be “even” if you can force a woman to have a child when she doesn’t want to then she could legally force you to get your testicles removed because she doesn’t want children- causing permanent hormonal and body changes in YOU because SHE doesn’t want your kids. It’s nonsense.
But getting back to the realistic- since you are both responsible IF a child is born, and you can’t force her to terminate any more than she can force you to get snipped, IF a child is born then you are responsible. IF a child isn’t born, a fetus is conceived but she miscarries, it’s conceived but she aborts- you have no parental rights. Can you teach a fetus to ride a bike? Play peek a boo with it? Can you hold it and feed it? No. You can’t. What rights could you have to it? It’s literally attached to her. It’s part of her body and a pregnant woman often incorporates cells from her fetus into her body that may remain a part of her for her life. So until a CHILD is born- you have no rights you didn’t have yesterday.
A fetus is not a CHILD. If a fetus were a CHILD, abortion wouldn’t be an option because the entire legality of abortion hinges on the fact that a fetus isn’t considered a child. Men: once you get to the vagina your rights end and you’re treading on HER consent to allow you to interact with her body. So the moment a baby is clear of the vagina- you have rights now. If it’s still in the vagina or her body- you have no rights. It’s really fucking simple. Picture the vagina like a border crossing- anything on the other side is out of your jurisdiction. She can’t force you to hatch a chicken egg in your asshole either can she?
Don't use "child", use "human" if you must, but preferably just use fetus. "Child" is an appeal to emotion, just as "baby" is.
A fetus, legal speaking, isn't counted on the census because it's not recognized as a human. Even the census counts illegal immigrants, because our government still recognizes them as humans, just not citizens, ergo, illegal immigrants have human rights under our laws. A fetus doesn't.
That's it. Change that law and there might be an argument. There is no law that a parasite can't be removed, and by every scientific definition of a parasite, a fetus meets the qualifications.
I'd say using "parasite" is an appeal to emotion, but a fetus meets the criteria of parasite, while it doesn't for human or child or baby.
So much for feminism, as if only men have sex drives and only men should considered impulsive when it comes to sex. That's a nice step backwards celticrose.
Let’s establish some facts real quick. When two people have sex both man and woman carry a potential 50-100% share of costs of a child. Ok. That’s equal. Women carry a 100% share of the physical risks and toll of pregnancy. Men carry a 0% physical risk or toll. Huh. Well- a man has 100% chance to walk away from the pregnancy at any time. The woman literally cannot- but she does have a 100% chance at abortion. Ok. Well, that’s even. Both can walk away any time they want in that regard. Well- if a man walks away and has a child, after the child is BORN he can be taken to court and made to pay a share of its upkeep. Ok. If a woman walks away and has a child, after the child is BORN she can be taken to court and made to pay a share of its upkeep.
Ok. That’s pretty even too. The only difference is- the man cannot control If the baby is born. So the woman doesn’t have to walk away and have there be a child. She can stop the child from being born. She has 100% of the power to stop the birth- the man has 0%. So everything is pretty equal except...
Women: 100% ability to determine of the child isn’t born. 100% physical risk and toll.
Men: 0% ability to determine the child not be born. 0% physical risk and toll.
It seems the equation ends up balanced out on the end after all! So yes- men AND women can be impulsive in sex- but women have a choice wether to be parents or not after conception, men do not have that choice. Women can’t choose to have the man carry the baby however- so the whole “equalitarianism” thing only works if we have a scenario where the man wants the child, the woman doesn’t, and so she gives the fetus to the man to carry. If you can’t produce that then the equation goes from balanced to unbalanced.
Now- the thing this whole scenario leaves out is the child. They didn’t choose to have a father who didn’t want them. If they are born- they suffer for not having a fathers support at least financially. If they are never born- they don’t suffer at all since they never existed as a functional human. It’s like flushing a load down the toilet. Unless we want to criminalize masturbation too? It’s paramount to realize a CHILD doesn’t exist until it’s born (or at least a certain point in pregnancy,) otherwise is like saying that if you kill someone you get charged with 10 million murders for all the kids they’d have and those kids WOULD have had and so on. We’re looking into the future on a crystal ball- not at the present. The moment of birth or when a fetus is no longer viable for abortion is the moment EITHER person has parental rights. Before that it’s basically a tumor and you don’t have parental rights over a tumor.
TL:DR- this logic os unsound and unbalanced. It doesn’t bring equality but destroys any idea of it. Realize what you are saying is- a man can sleep with anyone they want, and have 0 risk. If she gets pregnant: say you don’t want it. There’s no risk to the man at all. For the woman- she still not only carries the risk of pregnancy- but the risk that of a man says he doesn’t want it that she will have to care for it alone. AND this argument assumes every woman is morally or otherwise ok with abortion. That any woman WOULD get an abortion- when in fact some women won’t even get abortions when they have every logical reason to because they have issues with abortion. How is that even to say a man has 0 risked responsibility from sex and a woman carries it all?
Im not sure if @guest_ is trying to type long paragraphs in an effort to make people give up on the conversation because few people want to read through a whole opinion article for the sake of an internet debate or if they are just a very informative and thus wordy person
@ilikemoderation it's the latter... and @unklethan knows that. He said that as a joke... and it's kind of a running joke with @guest_ around here.
TL;DR option 2.
<_<
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
Not a joke. I try to steer clear of any debate where @guest_ has left a comment that has to be bigger than one paragraph.
It’s a complex issue. If you want me to use sock puppets and do a version like you’d explain voting or pollution to a grade schooler we can’t set up a web meeting for something and I can break it down. That’s not a discussion when someone says “this is bad.” Then someone says “this is good.” And they go back and forth without any exchange of the underlying thought processes or logic. If something isn’t worth reading a few paragraphs about, and isn’t worth writing a few- I’d go ahead and say that person shouldn’t have influence over the thing since they care so little. It’s a big enough deal to some, yet “a babies life” isn’t worth investing a few paragraphs in, but is worth taking away the ability to abort? You’re in it or you aren’t- and if you’re in it, you’ll stick it out. If you aren’t, then move on to something you actually care about.
The abortion ban won't stop women from having abortion.
It only prevents them from getting SAFE abortion.
Also people don't simply not want the child, they don't want the pregnancy either. As if just carry the damn thing for 9 months and getting rid of it is that simple, the preganancy is troublesome, painful and so is the period after it.
What if the Mom doesn't want the baby but the Dad does?
I think men should have the right to say they want their kid. As long as it wasn't from rape or something of that nature. But the Mom should be compensated for having to carry the kid someway. Maybe like you pay a surrogate.
And you can give up your rights to the kid if you are the Dad and don't want to have the kid but the mom still wants to have it.
My oldest brother had to sit and watch his exwife get rid of his twin babies because she had the right to get rid of them and he had no right to stop her. It tore him up. He hid from everyone for nearly a year.
It comes down to body autonomy. The person with the uterus is in charge since 99% of the process happens inside their body. As for surrogacy .. Yeah, I suppose if you could convince a person to go through pregnancy for payment.
No one said they HAD TO just I think the Dad of the baby should get some chance to have some kind of say. Woman will scream their heads off it took 2 to make a baby when the Dad refuses to pay for the kid but the minute they don't want the kid the Dad has no say what so ever. It isn't right.
There is even woman who carry the baby to full term deliver it and give it up for adopting never even mentioning it to the Dad. Not giving the Dad a chance to say if they want the baby.
My brother would of GLADLY took those babies and raised them alone. But his ex wife didn't want them so they were tossed out like trash. It just isn't right.
Pregnancy can cause both lethal and non-lethal damage to the woman carrying the child/children. It is their choice to continue or not, the father can provide their opinion but it should not ever be their choice over the person who would be at risk. It is the reason why there are birth control (hormonal) for women, each and every one has pretty terrible potential side effects but those side effects are less risky than carrying a child to term.
Your brother may have been willing to raise the children alone but simply carrying them to term was a risk to his ex-wife's life (especially with multiples).
And with the "scream their heads off...when the Dad refuses to pay for the kid..." child support is to support the child, who had no choice in their being born or not. The money is supposed to be for keeping them fed/clothed/housed/alive. It's not supposed to be "hey free money for having a kid" as your comment would suggest, and most child support payments don't come close to 1/2.
If the father wants the child, but the mother doesnt, then as long as he helps support her and do all she can while shes pregnant then I dont see the problem. He did his best to help her through the pregnancy and if she no longer wants anything to do with it once its born then that's better for the father.
But if neither parents want it then the mother should have the option to abort
So rich men can just force women into becoming baby farms?
Pregnancy does things to the body that are NEVER the same again. There is no way he can repay it 100%.
I didnt say force. If the mom is cool with carrying it term for the father only then I dont see the problem
If the woman doesnt want the baby, even if the father diesnt, then it's her choice not to have it
She is the one that has the fetus in her body after all
Ah, I see. Yeah, but it would have to be handled with some sort of mediator.... like... a few lawyers and the father would have to pay for hers as well. If everyone is on-board that shouldn't be difficult, but there'd be nuances.... so It'd still favor rich people, rich male people. That's my point. I took it too the extreme though.
Technically the ban wouldn’t stop women from having an abortion. It just prohibits doctors from performing an abortion. Similarly, it is on a federal level it is illegal for someone under 18 to buy cigarettes, HOWEVER, it is not illegal for them to consume or smoke the cigarettes. There is no restriction (federally) in terms of what the 18 year old can do with their body (like women and abortion) but it doesn’t allow vendors to sell to the kid (like doctors and performing abortions). So technically this ban does not do any restricting of right of the women (if you believe it is a right of them women)
If you go out of state, get an abortion, and then come back, you can be charged. The charge isn't the 99 year felony a doctor would get, it's a 10 year felony... which, of course, is 100% unconstitutional. I'd love to see an interstate commerce clause argument from Alabama about it. The law is so absurd it has no chance of actually going into effect and all this is much ado about nothing. Now... there are some other ones, like the Georgia one, that actually have a chance to make it to the SC, but even there I think they'll be ruled unconstitutional.
So what you’re saying is that a state could and/or should hold its citizens to its laws even when they are in other states? Firstly- how does that even work? Obviously a person has to follow the laws of another state they visit- so what happens if two states have conflicting laws- do you follow the visiting laws or your gone state laws- or do you just choose the state you’d rather go to prison in or be blocked from other states? A state ant make something universally illegal- only outlaw it within their borders. This has been upheld numerous times- people vs Brown, United States vs anderson, etc. a crime must be committed within the state it is illegal. For instance- if a state says its illegal to BUY an item but not illegal to POSSES, IMPORT, or TRANSPORT an item, and you buy it where legal and bring it home, no crime has been committed in that state even though the effects of that crime persist.
If you think a moment- the idea is insane. Could a state where smoking is illegal indoors prosecute you for smoking in a state it is legal when you get home? If you live in a “dry” county and buy alcohol out of county should the sherif arrest you? If you visit the UK should you be arrested and given pints on your license when you get home for driving on the right side of the road or if you go to the autobahn can you get a speeding ticket when you come back to the US? And how do you check that? Do we make mandatory physical examinations a thing where women returning from other states are vaginally inspected and blood tested and lab tested for signs of abortion or recent pregnancy? How do you get the Federal HEPA restrictions on medical records opened up so an out of state doctor is required to report to law enforcement that a citizen of their state had an abortion?
I mean- for a guy who often talks about “big government” you don’t seem to mind the government getting involved when it’s something you don’t care for. What- you want the government combing insurance and personal physician records of people looking for clues they broke the law so they can be arrested? And what about those abortion doctors? If they visit a state where it is illegal do they face automatic jail time? Or what if they move to such a state, or their state changes the law? Can they face jail time for something they did when and where it was legal too because now it’s illegal? How far of a statue of limitations are we going to put on prosecution of abortion that happened ex post facto? What is being described is a dystopian nightmare of an iron fisted example of abuse of power and violation of basic principals of law.
Again... a ICC case on a fetus. Tell me that wouldn't be epic!
You know... for law students... not even lawyers. They'd tear it to shreds so fast; so many angles.
@guest_ I never spoke about the interstate side of this. I was merely talking about the states bans. And of which you have every right to go to a state where something is legal and partake in legal activities there. Nothing can be done about it as you are out of the banned states control. I never once spoke about persecuting people who move between states. I simply said a doctor couldn’t perform the abortion (within that state). As for the idea of big government I completely agree that the government has its hands in too many PERSONAL aspects of life. But this is an aspect of life where it involves multiple people in which case one of the roles of government is to protect the rights of individuals, one of which is life. Now, we can get down and argue the age old argument of whether a fetus is a human life and then go in circles and never come to an agreement besides to disagree. But that is neither here nor there at the moment. The fact of the matter is that states have every right to
Restrict the actions of doctors and keep them from doing said action. It does not restrict the women’s choice in the matter. It just restricts the ability of the doctor. For instance, as stated before, in some states at least, people under 18 years old have no restrictions from smoking cigarettes. But they do have restrictions on buying them and vendors have restrictions on selling them to underage people. That’s the point I was making.
Also @funkmasterrex , I read the bill and, unless I accidentally skipped that section, it clearly states that any woman who has the abortion shall not be charged with a felony. So I’d like to see your source saying if they leave the state and come back they will be charged for up to 10 years.
There was false news stating that part about the charges from going out of state, unless it was from one of the other states implementing bans and they got confused.
It's not the same bill. I stated that. I stated that there were multiple bills. Anyway, here's the Georgia part where... yeah.. I'm right, so far. It has to be brought up in court first.... but attempted murder charges don't go away, even when you're cleared of them.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-abortion-law/
Another issue is... there are literally 200+ stupid ass bills like this. I don't know if it's worse that these pass and are struck down, or none pass and the waves of them just keep... doing what I like my lady friends doing.
@ilikemoderation- my comments weren’t directed at you or in direct response to you. Just on the topic in general- hence why there was no “@.” If I recall correctly I may have been writing and jumping between work and I do not believe (but could be mistaken) your comment was in the thread yet when I started typing, so I’m just seeing it now. I was merely pointing out that the idea of prosecution of any type for an activity out of jurisdiction is ludicrous, and that the idea of such a bill in itself is already dubious.
As for arguing fetus life be not- that is the fundamental core of the debate. If it were agreed one way or another universal that a fetus was or wasn’t life- only the most far out of society would argue for or against. But that’s the point isn’t it? How do we proceed to the part where we are outlawing something before we have even determined there is an action that should be outlawed? If we remove- completely remove any debates concerning religion or life from the equation- we have a clear argument for abortion as a practical solution, but what is the argument against if we remove the issue of life? What reasons are there to oppose if we were taking about a woman’s ability to have a mole removed?
And that’s the point. It’s convenient to say “well- we cant agree on life or not so let’s skip that and start passing laws...” almost the entirety of any argument to criminalize or ban medically administered abortions hinges on wether a fetus is life. It’s like outlawing the ability to watch the Simpsons. What would the reason be? What is the harm? An important concept in law- who is being harmed or at risk of harm? What is the demonstrable and statistically verifiable proof of harm to society if not an individual? What issues does a society with legal abortion face which harm the people of we ignore the issue of life?
Now let’s add life back in. Wow. Things just got a lot different. Let’s say a fetus IS life. Suddenly- we are literally talking about murder. Wow. Heavy stuff. We are now looking at something more akin to the situations under which assisted suicide be allowed- we have to ask questions, should it be allowed at all, and if at all- what conditions can we say it is more humane or justifiable? Except... we haven’t gotten that far. No one has been able to prove conclusively that a fetus is equivalent to a fully formed human being. If they do- the doors swing open. That means we need to test a fetus with all the legal rights and protections and requirements of a human being. That means a woman with a zygote in her can ride in the carpool lane and I can take out a life insurance policy on my fetus and a bunch of other things. It’s a person or it isn’t. But...
before we can pass any reasonable laws we would certainly need to determine which it is- otherwise my dog gets human rights since it’s more mentally advanced than a fetus. And as it stands science says a fetus is a collection of cells that is in every way lesser than a fully formed human and not capable of human thought. So you have to prove science wrong, not prove how you feel about the thing. Feelings don’t put boots on the moon- they inspire minds to find the answers and endure the struggles to prove it can be done. Feelings alone are fantasies, so prove your feelings are real and then pass laws. In one hand is the known facts, in the other are feelings. One is worth more than the other here.
Take out a life insurance policy on fetuses and Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana suddenly becomes the richest states in the union and every insurance provider that provides in those states are bankrupt.
That'd be fucking hilarious.
@guest_ if you would like to have the life discussion then we can. I tried to stray away from it because the topic was about the bills. But here are the scientific, no belief or religious, reason why the fetus is a life. 1) same number of chromosomes and same chromosomal make up of humans. So it can be agreed that it is indeed human. So if you want to call it a clump if cells, it is at least a clump if human cells. 2) it meets all the criteria of life based once biology. The criteria that is often debated is the reproductive criteria. However, the reason it does meet this criteria is because it will be able to reproduce. Otherwise, children don’t meet this criteria because they can’t reproduce. Other criteria to follow this comment ...
7 criteria
1) Homeostasis: the cells try to maintain Set levels in their internal environments.
2) Growth and change: cells reproduce and grow from the first mitosis after fertilization
3) Metabolism: cells perform chemical reactions to divide and begin differentiation
4) Stimuli: cells respond to changes in their environment by increasing and decreasing differentiation in order to provide best chance of survival inutero
5) Structure: built from cells that organize into tissues
6) Heredity: cells contain chromosomes (46 like every other human) that can pass traits to offspring
7) Reproduction: organism has the potential to reproduce at full growth
I mean, it's a proto-human. A fetus actually does not possess traits 6 or 7 from your list, @ilikemideration. A fetus cannot generate offspring. A fully grown fetus becomes a baby, which cannot reproduce.
,
You arguing this point of view makes me feel like you're zoomed in too far for this particular debate. If I'm right, you have decided that any abortion is murder. Please realize that no one wants abortion to be a thing that ever needs to be considered. Also please realize outlawing abortion makes abortion rates go up.
,
If everyone would get on the same page and push long term birth control and sex education as options, the abortion rates would continue to plummet. Over the last ten years, they've gone down 24%. Changing the laws now would undo that progress and this form of murder would come surging back. Literally no one wants that.
@jasnmon But with 6 and 7 they will when they develop. Otherwise you are saying that a baby who is 1 year old doesn’t meet 6 and 7 which means they aren’t alive either. So we could abort children up to the point they can reproduce. Any entry level biology class explains with 6 and 7, due to stages of life cycles, that they develop this ability.
,
I would need to see the statistic to see that outlawing abortion makes rates go up to believe that.
,
I completely agree that other options should be pushed. But by that logic then abortion shouldn’t be the discussion. It should be about healthcare. But it’s not about that. It’s about abortion. Because there are people that want that safety net for their decisions and the consequences that follow them.
I posted the research here recently. I will be happy to go through my posts and do it again here though. I don't have time rn, but I will respond to your comment soon. Have a good day! :)
I'm back, @ilikemoderation. I got confused by your earlier comment because I thought you were saying a fetus meets all criteria of life. I read it again and it looks like you are simply arguing that a human zygote and an adult human are indistinguishable, therefore all abortion is murder. You're entitled to that opinion, of course. If you really think it's murder, you'd want to minimize it, right? Is outlawing it going to help you?
,
I'm glad you agree that other options besides abortion should be pushed. You lose me again at "but it’s not about that. It’s about abortion. Because there are people that want that safety net for their decisions and the consequences that follow them."
,
Are you saying that, because a percentage of women use abortion as birth control, we should do away with the option of abortion in every case across the board no matter what? Can we just find a way to disincentivize that particular behavior? I am a problem solver, and this is obviousa complicated problem.
@ilikemoderation- ok. So then, using your criteria, an organism with less or more than the exact number of chromosomes does or does not qualify as human? People with aneuploidy, trisomy (like Down syndrome,) those with Turner syndrome, who have less, etc, would likely be very interested in wether they get to keep their status as human as well? If you DO consider people with these conditions human, then there are plenty of other organisms which meet your 7 criteria and have many more or a few less chromosomes than us too- where do they stand then? What you still fail to produce is a system which identifies special traits a fetus has that nothing else that we do not treat as strictly “human” does.
Likewise- what about your criteria gives anyone the right to terminate support or care for a relative who is ill or unresponsive? By your definitions, we can’t “kill” a fetus- even if said fetus was at high risk of defect. So that fetus is born as a person, and can’t have a “normal” quality of life- so if a grown person were to slip into a comatose state where they were incapable of a “normal quality of life” and wholly dependent on care- we are obligated then to keep them alive.
If faced with death or lifelong care and loss of mental motor control and or memory- anything but life would be murder. The fact grandpa is going to die is irrelevant. He’s alive now, so any action which would likely result in his death would be murder. So we must pay to keep him alive. Same with if you get in a car accident. Your cells still divide, you still have the same number of chromosomes, all your conditions are met to say that vegetative person in that bed is just as alive and worthy as a fetus. Can’t reproduce, limited senses, limited or no mental capacity beyond basic functions of life like breathing- still alive- still meets all criteria.
So your criteria are fundamentally inadequate to prove your point- unless your point is that facilitating any death, anywhere, for most any reason is murder? That was my point. Science doesn’t even have an answer for what if anything makes a human life “worth” more than any other life let alone any “special” attribute to it. You need to find the scientific validation of what makes a “human” life. Even a baby is capable of more than a fetus, and the closest anyone has come to defining the “special” attribute of humanity is some type of sentient, aware, consciousness- which a fetus has not been shown to have or be capable of.
Anyway, those 7 points are from biology 101... go any further and you'd realize it's so much murkier. Viruses and parasites especially muck it up... mainly viruses.
And again, those criteria would apply to an embryo fertilized in one of thousands of fertility clinics. There are hundreds of thousands, potentially over a million, of fertilized embryos in fertility storage in America alone. Since they fit that bill does that mean we are now obligated to attempt to bring all of those to term as well. Who should be forced to carry them, and even if only 1/10 of those actually reaches birth, that would cause a catastrophic population boom.
Genetics is complicated. There’s many reasons why science is wary about playing with genetics, and why we aren’t yet able to manipulate organisms to our will. One statistic says that 99.%of genes are shared by all humans. What this is in simplified terms saying is that we share amino acids. But in context to billions of genes- that 1% is a significant number of differences. Moreover, the fact we HAVE certain genes doesn’t mean they are active in our gene sequence. Many people posses genes responsible for emetic disorder but don’t manifest the disorder because those bees aren’t active, and many with disorders have the raw materials to not have them- but it’s just what genes are or are not active. Genetically most people have the genes to be light or dark skinned- but again, they simply aren’t all active at once leaving people closer to one end of a spectrum than the other in most cases.
Our genetics even contain viruses we’ve caught or even our ancestors have caught which are dormant but still within our genetic code. In fact- while we can identify genes and even certain gene sequences, we have almost no idea how information is coded and stored in genes. Making even a simple organism from “scratch” genetically has yet to be done. Scientists are making headway into creating “artificial” DNA, and have combined “artificial” DNA with existing samples to create somewhat novel life forms- but there’s a long way to go.
And that 1% of DNA that separates most humans from each other? Just 2.5% is what separates humans from mice. So the question asked about what makes human life inherently so special is somewhat rhetorical in that the greatest minds of our time our still looking for answers and it’s unlikely some random forum goer would beat them all to it- but serious in that it’s critical to the debate.
If one wants to rely on genetics to differentiate murder- one must first establish what particular aspect of our genes makes us human, and why that is. Because if genetics or biology are what will make that decision, and one of those traits or genes is in the 97+% shared by mice, or the percent shared by cows or by a potato- then we either have to treat those things as human too or admit that exception of practicality must exist.
Moreover- it seeks that the decision can’t simply hang on genetics. I’ve already discussed in many other posts the matter of those on life support and the like. If one argues that cost or quality of life etc. allows for the termination of those with terminal or low odds of recovery conditions- then we clearly see there IS a practical point where quality of life or functional and cognitive ability allow us to define the termination of a life in a way that isn’t murder.
@celtocrose- we share 50% of our genes with bananas, but our actual DNA is a very small percent. That’s where genetics gets very complex. We can share large amounts of genetic material or even structures with organisms we are very different from. The tiniest percentage difference between two things can actually be HUGE because of how genetic information is stored- and even in cases where our genetic material and make up is near identical- other factors can have a HUGE impact on function. You can remove most of a brain and have a person still alive, but not only non functional but lacking any of the qualities that made them “a person.” So we still have yet to define what makes a human life, or why identical functional states would be considered differently.
Very true. Although- it’s still tricky in that we aren’t exactly sure what really IS junk dna. Like, what DNA can we remove and still you would be “you?” What’s even trickier is when we get to generational changes- how will an edit that seemingly didn’t effect the lifeform effect its offspring and theirs and so on? Some argue there is no real “junk dna” as evolution is very good at getting rid of that which isn’t needed but expends energy to create or maintain. “Junk dna” could be an important factor in future evolution or adaptation, or just in creating a healthy and diverse genepool. At this point there’s more we don’t know than we do about genetics.
But it really is quite complex. Genetics sets the stage for many things, including the hormones and responses to them our bodies have- and we don’t really understand how hormones work that well either, and they aren’t nearly as complex but are dependent on genetics. Things like steroid cycles for illness, old age, or performance- menopause treatments, endocrine disorders- even diabetes (insulin is a hormone and effects more than just diabetes but plays roles in cellular uptake and storage, various blood chemicals levels- etc.
Though laboratory, field, and off label use we’ve discovered that there is a complex interplay of hormones in the body. It’s not so simple to add or block a substance or its effects, and the body can often respond in counter intuitive ways. An increase in a desired hormone often creates increases in conflicting hormones- but the blocking or counter acting of said undesired hormone often has its own undesirable effects. Add to that that a single hormone has multiple functions- just as genes often do- and the picture is one where we can see there is a very complex puzzle we are nowhere near answering. Being able to install a new program on a computer, knowing the basic ideas it works on, are far from being able to design and create a working computer yourself completely from scratch.
So genetics is full of answers but more questions. When all is said and done, when we zoom in far enough most life on earth is quite similar at the most fundamental levels. There’s both a great deal and very little which separates us at our core from anything else that is alive- but what is a valuable and protected species to be protected and revered one place, is an invasive threat to be eradicated in another. The same life form, with the right or wrong of its killing coming down to a practical context. Even with humans we split hairs but if we want to invoke genetics- the genes are the same living or dead- add biology and we can see changes in process- but if a thing was already biologically different from us to start we can’t really compare it’s biology to ours apples to apples.
Any biological occurrences inside a woman should be completely within her control. Bodily autonomy is not a hard concept. If a man wants a child, he should make a child with a woman who wants to have one.
100% agree if a guy says he wants the girl to have an abortion but she says no as she wants the child then it's not the guys fault if she keeps it and she has theoretically no right to ask him for anything.
So if someone hits you with their car and say they don't want to have to pay your medical bills, that totally okay, you should be fine paying for everything yourself.
1Reply
·
Edited 5 years ago
deleted
· 5 years ago
This is a thread full of anger, straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies.
You would do well to stay away from most, if not all of it.
Go have a productive conversation somewhere else.
That would be nice. But we are here because we can’t all agree. The “crusade” is the biggest obstacle- Most of us- but especially those of us raised or considering ourselves in moral authority, can’t stand by when we see what we think is “wrong.” To those who see a fetus as a human being- being silent while others did it would be the same as watching a person be gunned down in cold blood and doing or saying nothing. We see with things like gay marriage where people’s belief systems already do not allow them to let consenting individuals live their lives as they wish- but in issue to abortion- since they consider the fetus as a person it is more like “rape” to them in which the needs or wants of the mother are out before those of the fetus.
I’m not saying they are right- just that is the position they are coming from. That they cannot simply allow other people to violate their own personal moral codes. That they expect others to follow their morality wether others like it or not, and that they feel by virtue of existing in the world, the world should reflect what they want it to be and not what those who do not agree would want. The closer we get to absolute freedom as a society- the further we get from any one person considering the world as perfection- In a total dictatorship a smaller percentage of total people are very satisfied and an equal or larger percent are very dissatisfied. When we move towards freedom the total “average” satisfaction stays about the same, but those who would be less happy are more happy and those once more happy are less happy so that a majority of people are not extremely happy or dishappy
But the moral authority demands a person force what they think is right lest they think badly of themselves. That they “did wrong” through inaction or complacency. At its core is an image of self and the desire to have the world reflect and validate what they believe. To a degree we are all guilty, as the brain clings to self image and really- we can only view the world through the lens of self. But it’s easier and usually more advantageous for these people to fight legal and political and propaganda battles and debate philosophy and religion than it is to prove their point using science.
It really is just about that simple. If you can create a majority accepted test or system of criteria to:
1. Define “human” life or basic qualifications.
2. Quantify why human life is any more valuable or inherently special than any other life.
3. Show the harm done to society by abortion.
4. Create the legal infrastructure required once a non born embryo is classified as human, as well as any other creatures which fit the criteria set forth for “worthy life.”
Then bam. Discussion over. Right now- science doesn’t support their views and so they reject science- a classic example of the mind preserving self image against reality.
Nope, sorry, but the guy should still have to contribute at least SOMETHING, because regardless of whether he wants the kid, it's not the kids fault he couldn't keep it in his pants. Saying the woman should bare the entirely of the burden both physically and financially is ludicrous on multiple levels, but most importantly that it affects the child as much if not more than the woman. As far as the "it's my body it's my choice", yes, it is her body that is going to bare the entire burden of gestating and birthing the child, so yes, it should be her choice whether she can handle that.
That being said, I feel that once that pregnancy reaches the point the baby is viable and has a reasonable chance of surviving on it's own (7 months+), it should no longer be an option to abort because it's no longer just her body. And honestly, if by that point she hasn't made up her mind that's really on her, adoption is always an option.
What if the father wants it and the mother doesn’t? Will she have to pay child support? Not very likely. And I do enjoy how you went directly after the father. Your typical thinking is why we have counterintuitive laws such as these in the first place.
Pregnancy is a very plausible outcome of of having sex. The mutual decision to have sex is where both partners enter into the risk. If the dude wants to avoid child support, his opportunity to do so was way back under the sheets (or portapotty, i dont judge).
By the way, I am not disagreeing with your point. I think if the father doesn’t want to be involved, he should have to pay child support. All I’m saying is why is my query being actively ignored?
*Edit: this is only for a pregnancy that they both wanted, not a rape scenario. Just so we are clear.
It’s not dodged. So let’s break it down. When do parenting rights start? WHEN? Well- the first key point to make is that in order to be a parent- there must be a child. You can’t parent a fetus. Men AND women have no parental rights until a baby is born. You can’t claim an unborn fetus as a dependent or order off the child menu for an unborn child. A woman does however have exclusive rights to her medical care- and by extension the fetus- because at this point there is no child. A fetus doesn’t have a social security number or anything- it’s a non person legally.
So IF a baby is born- and IF. The mother leaves it with the father, the father has the same rights to seek support in court as a woman. If no baby is ever born- no one pays because there was never a child and they were never parents. They were expectant parents. There is nothing about a fetus that makes its rights or care or any interest in it supersede the autonomy of the mother or her rights to privacy and care as she determines.
So quick check list:
>is the fetus the one who is checked in to the hospital?
>when the doctors wheel the patient in, who’s name does it say under patient? Mom or the fetus?
>does the fetus have insurance? Is the fetus’s insurance paying?
>Can you use the carpool lane with a fetus?
>Can a Fetus get a passport?
>can you send a fetus to it’s room or lay it down for a nap?
>can you sue a fetus?
>can you claim a fetus on your taxes?
Answer these questions and you’ll quickly see that a fetus isn’t a child- and that while possible- it is rare and risky to establish paternity before birth- so you can’t even claim to be the father with certainty- and there is no father of record until there is a birth certificate- after a baby is born. You have no rights to a fetus.
I totally agree that whoever doesn't have custody should have to pay whoever does. I honestly didn't see your comment. It doesn't matter who has custody, unless it is some kind of agreement beforehand that the mother is basically just a surrogate or the father a sperm donor, both should provide for the child.
A fetus, legal speaking, isn't counted on the census because it's not recognized as a human. Even the census counts illegal immigrants, because our government still recognizes them as humans, just not citizens, ergo, illegal immigrants have human rights under our laws. A fetus doesn't.
That's it. Change that law and there might be an argument. There is no law that a parasite can't be removed, and by every scientific definition of a parasite, a fetus meets the qualifications.
I'd say using "parasite" is an appeal to emotion, but a fetus meets the criteria of parasite, while it doesn't for human or child or baby.
Men: 0% ability to determine the child not be born. 0% physical risk and toll.
It seems the equation ends up balanced out on the end after all! So yes- men AND women can be impulsive in sex- but women have a choice wether to be parents or not after conception, men do not have that choice. Women can’t choose to have the man carry the baby however- so the whole “equalitarianism” thing only works if we have a scenario where the man wants the child, the woman doesn’t, and so she gives the fetus to the man to carry. If you can’t produce that then the equation goes from balanced to unbalanced.
TL;DR option 2.
<_<
It only prevents them from getting SAFE abortion.
Also people don't simply not want the child, they don't want the pregnancy either. As if just carry the damn thing for 9 months and getting rid of it is that simple, the preganancy is troublesome, painful and so is the period after it.
I think men should have the right to say they want their kid. As long as it wasn't from rape or something of that nature. But the Mom should be compensated for having to carry the kid someway. Maybe like you pay a surrogate.
And you can give up your rights to the kid if you are the Dad and don't want to have the kid but the mom still wants to have it.
My oldest brother had to sit and watch his exwife get rid of his twin babies because she had the right to get rid of them and he had no right to stop her. It tore him up. He hid from everyone for nearly a year.
There is even woman who carry the baby to full term deliver it and give it up for adopting never even mentioning it to the Dad. Not giving the Dad a chance to say if they want the baby.
My brother would of GLADLY took those babies and raised them alone. But his ex wife didn't want them so they were tossed out like trash. It just isn't right.
Your brother may have been willing to raise the children alone but simply carrying them to term was a risk to his ex-wife's life (especially with multiples).
And with the "scream their heads off...when the Dad refuses to pay for the kid..." child support is to support the child, who had no choice in their being born or not. The money is supposed to be for keeping them fed/clothed/housed/alive. It's not supposed to be "hey free money for having a kid" as your comment would suggest, and most child support payments don't come close to 1/2.
But if neither parents want it then the mother should have the option to abort
Pregnancy does things to the body that are NEVER the same again. There is no way he can repay it 100%.
If the woman doesnt want the baby, even if the father diesnt, then it's her choice not to have it
She is the one that has the fetus in her body after all
You know... for law students... not even lawyers. They'd tear it to shreds so fast; so many angles.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-abortion-law/
Another issue is... there are literally 200+ stupid ass bills like this. I don't know if it's worse that these pass and are struck down, or none pass and the waves of them just keep... doing what I like my lady friends doing.
That'd be fucking hilarious.
1) Homeostasis: the cells try to maintain Set levels in their internal environments.
2) Growth and change: cells reproduce and grow from the first mitosis after fertilization
3) Metabolism: cells perform chemical reactions to divide and begin differentiation
4) Stimuli: cells respond to changes in their environment by increasing and decreasing differentiation in order to provide best chance of survival inutero
5) Structure: built from cells that organize into tissues
6) Heredity: cells contain chromosomes (46 like every other human) that can pass traits to offspring
7) Reproduction: organism has the potential to reproduce at full growth
,
You arguing this point of view makes me feel like you're zoomed in too far for this particular debate. If I'm right, you have decided that any abortion is murder. Please realize that no one wants abortion to be a thing that ever needs to be considered. Also please realize outlawing abortion makes abortion rates go up.
,
If everyone would get on the same page and push long term birth control and sex education as options, the abortion rates would continue to plummet. Over the last ten years, they've gone down 24%. Changing the laws now would undo that progress and this form of murder would come surging back. Literally no one wants that.
,
I would need to see the statistic to see that outlawing abortion makes rates go up to believe that.
,
I completely agree that other options should be pushed. But by that logic then abortion shouldn’t be the discussion. It should be about healthcare. But it’s not about that. It’s about abortion. Because there are people that want that safety net for their decisions and the consequences that follow them.
,
I'm glad you agree that other options besides abortion should be pushed. You lose me again at "but it’s not about that. It’s about abortion. Because there are people that want that safety net for their decisions and the consequences that follow them."
,
Are you saying that, because a percentage of women use abortion as birth control, we should do away with the option of abortion in every case across the board no matter what? Can we just find a way to disincentivize that particular behavior? I am a problem solver, and this is obviousa complicated problem.
,
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill
,
https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-21/abortion-rates-where-and-why-theyre-falling
You would do well to stay away from most, if not all of it.
Go have a productive conversation somewhere else.
1. Define “human” life or basic qualifications.
2. Quantify why human life is any more valuable or inherently special than any other life.
3. Show the harm done to society by abortion.
4. Create the legal infrastructure required once a non born embryo is classified as human, as well as any other creatures which fit the criteria set forth for “worthy life.”
Then bam. Discussion over. Right now- science doesn’t support their views and so they reject science- a classic example of the mind preserving self image against reality.
That being said, I feel that once that pregnancy reaches the point the baby is viable and has a reasonable chance of surviving on it's own (7 months+), it should no longer be an option to abort because it's no longer just her body. And honestly, if by that point she hasn't made up her mind that's really on her, adoption is always an option.
*Edit: this is only for a pregnancy that they both wanted, not a rape scenario. Just so we are clear.
>is the fetus the one who is checked in to the hospital?
>when the doctors wheel the patient in, who’s name does it say under patient? Mom or the fetus?
>does the fetus have insurance? Is the fetus’s insurance paying?
>Can you use the carpool lane with a fetus?
>Can a Fetus get a passport?
>can you send a fetus to it’s room or lay it down for a nap?
>can you sue a fetus?
>can you claim a fetus on your taxes?
Answer these questions and you’ll quickly see that a fetus isn’t a child- and that while possible- it is rare and risky to establish paternity before birth- so you can’t even claim to be the father with certainty- and there is no father of record until there is a birth certificate- after a baby is born. You have no rights to a fetus.