Devolution
Member
What did I tell you about those nails jerk.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What does GAF think of paper abortions?
- Thread starter Bleepey
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
What did I tell you about those nails jerk.
What did I tell you about those nails jerk.
Sorry. I'll try to be better.
IHaveCandy
Banned
If a good argument leads to that result, it isn't a bad argument just because the result is so far off from what we think. And we already sort of do that with organs. If you were to die tomorrow, why can I not legally take your organs as I please, even if it was to save a life? You are no longer a sentient creature. Why do your organs still have rights??
A bad argument would be one that resulted in a kidney being a person. A bad argument is one that leads to contradiction or absurdity.
I think you have assumed my position and are arguing against that.
IHaveCandy
Banned
If you want to join back in, is really appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked earlier. I think the sex/procreation argument was just getting in the way of the more important argument. So I conceded that argument to you so we could move past that.What did I tell you about those nails jerk.
If a good argument leads to that result, it isn't a bad argument just because the result is so far off from what we think. And we already sort of do that with organs. If you were to die tomorrow, why can I not legally take your organs as I please, even if it was to save a life? You are no longer a sentient creature. Why do your organs still have rights?
It's not a bad result because it is different to what we think, it is a bad result because nobody would consider a kidney a human.
And this organ donation bollocks you keep bringing up is easily dismissed. The wishes of the person who inhabited the body determine the final disposition of the body. I disagree with it a bit, probably everyone should be a donor unless they opt out I think, but it lends nothing to your contention that any cluster of human cells is a human or a person.
Devolution
Member
If you want to join back in, is really appreciate it if you would answer the question I asked earlier. I think the sex/procreation argument was just getting in the way of the more important argument. So I conceded that argument to you so we could move past that.
What question?
Really? I can use your organs without your permission in order to live?
Probably. Can conjoined twins undergo separation surgery without the consent of both parties, even if doing so would certainly kill the non-consenting party? I wonder if there's ever been a case...
Exactly. The species of the creature should have no bearing on the rights it has. Humans should have the most rights, but only because we have attributes that justify them.If by human, you mean Homo Sapiens, then sure.
But an embryo is as much a person as frogspawn is a frog.
We're asking ourselves whether or not a lump of cells have the same rights as something that is able to make decisions
Consider the hypothetical scenario in which a human-like alien race arrives at Earth. It would be immoral to slaughter them like cattle. They might not be human, but looking like Worf shouldn't deny them any rights. They share the same key right-granting attributes
Alas, what exactly those attributes are is a matter of debate which is not so easily resolvable...
Devolution
Member
Probably. Can conjoined twins undergo separation surgery without the consent of both parties, even if doing so would certainly kill the non-consenting party? I wonder if there's ever been a case...
Exactly. The species of the creature should have no bearing on the rights it has. Humans should have special rights, but only because we have properties that justify them.
Consider the hypothetical scenario in which a human-like alien race arrives at Earth. It would be immoral to slaughter them like cattle. They might not be human, but looking like Worf shouldn't deny them any rights. They share the same key right-granting properties
Alas, what exactly those properties are is a matter of debate which is not so easily resolvable...
Conjoined twins is not the same damn thing and you know it.
Conjoined twins is not the same damn thing and you know it.
No, I really don't. Perhaps you could elaborate.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Uhh, you just contradicted yourself on that first part. How is people not think a kidney is a human not denying something that is so far off from what they currently think?It's not a bad result because it is different to what we think, it is a bad result because nobody would consider a kidney a human.
And this organ donation bollocks you keep bringing up is easily dismissed. The wishes of the person who inhabited the body determine the final disposition of the body. I disagree with it a bit, probably everyone should be a donor unless they opt out I think, but it lends nothing to your contention that any cluster of human cells is a human or a person.
And that seems like a crazy exception to make. What does it matter if you were once sentient? You're not anymore. You're not even slice anymore. Why should those wishes be respected? Is ripping your body apart upsetting you after you are dead? The fact that you were once alive and sentient doesn't seem like it actually changes anything. It's just an inconsequential difference of the circumstances.
IHaveCandy
Banned
What question?
.Okay devolution, lets go on with your argument that sex and procreation are different acts as far as permission goes. I am trying to present the pro life argument, so lets assume that a fetus has the same rights as any other human. You say that it using your body should be your decision. If that is the case, why shouldn't it be up to the mother whether or not they dedicate their time and money necessary to support their baby or child? Taking care of a child for 18 years is far more tolling on your life than carrying a baby to term. If we agree that they have the same rights for the sake of the argument, why is the baby/child entitled to that time and money from the mother, but the fetus isn't entitled to develop like every other human did?
Good lord, forget about your stupid organ donation metaphor/simile/analogy/whatever. It contributes nothing to your argument. Unless you are arguing that a cluster of human cells is not a person. In which case it makes more sense.Uhh, you just contradicted yourself on that first part. How is people not think a kidney is a human not denying something that is so far off from what they currently think?
And that seems like a crazy exception to make. What does it matter if you were once sentient? You're not anymore. You're not even slice anymore. Why should those wishes be respected? Is ripping your body apart upsetting you after you are dead? The fact that you were once alive and sentient doesn't seem like it actually changes anything. It's just an inconsequential difference of the circumstances.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I'm arguing that we already grant rights to human bodies that are no longer sentient. Ultimately I think in order to be consistent, people need to either ban abortions or dead bodies shouldn't have any rights of preservation. I guess you could say my argument isn't useful if you are comfortable with allowing a dead bodies to lose their right of preservation.Good lord, forget about your stupid organ donation metaphor/simile/analogy/whatever. It contributes nothing to your argument. Unless you are arguing that a cluster of human cells is not a person. In which case it makes more sense.
And again, your initial part of that post is a contradiction. It is in fact allowing the result being unwanted to let you determine the argument is bad. It's having the ends dictate the means.
Devolution
Member
You do realize women can give the kid up for adoption right?
And that seems like a crazy exception to make. What does it matter if you were once sentient? You're not anymore. You're not even slice anymore. Why should those wishes be respected? Is ripping your body apart upsetting you after you are dead? The fact that you were once alive and sentient doesn't seem like it actually changes anything. It's just an inconsequential difference of the circumstances.
The rights of the dead exist for the living. Part of it is so that those near death can rest easy, knowing that their wishes will be respected. They're not blind. They can see what happens to other people who died, and they know what will happen to them.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I don't think that is an easy or guaranteed route to take. Adoption is available if you cannot support your child, not if you'd just prefer not to do so. I'm asking why the person who can afford to do so shouldn't be allowed to dump off their kid.You do realize women can give the kid up for adoption right?
Rest easy? They are dead. There is only one way they are going to be resting.The rights of the dead exist for the living. Part of it is so that those near death can rest easy, knowing that their wishes will be respected. They're not blind. They can see what happens to other people who died, and they know what will happen to them.
Devolution
Member
I don't think that is an easy or guaranteed route to take. Adoption is available if you cannot support your child, not if you'd just prefer not to do so. I'm asking why the person who can afford to do so shouldn't be allowed to dump off their kid.
Because they've chosen to take on the responsibility once they kept it assuming they can't or won't give it up. Bodily autonomy is the choice given to the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.
Bad phrasing on my part. I meant rest easy when they're still alive.Rest easy? They are dead. There is only one way they are going to be resting.
IHaveCandy
Banned
That sounds a lot like your sex/pregnancy argument. It seems like you are cherry picking when responsibility for your consequences kick in. Why should a parent of a child be anymore responsible than the parent of a fetus, assuming the fetus and child have the exact same rights?Because they've chosen to take on the responsibility once they kept it assuming they can't or won't give it up. Bodily autonomy is the choice given to the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.
That seems like a pointless distinction to me though. I get the practical use of making the distinction since people probably don't want others freaking out about how their body will be handled. It just seems strange to allow an uproar to something that won't matter in the end to have you be contradictory over the subject of rights and life.Bad phrasing on my part. I meant rest easy when they're still alive.
The only way this could maybe, possibly, remotely work is if you could only opt out of fatherhood with the mother's explicit consent and agreement.
But if you let guys unilaterally decide to stop supporting a child without the mother's agreement, then that's just a disaster. In many if not most cases men will just use it as leverage to force the mother to abort the child or put it up for adoption. There's already enough deadbeat dads in this country - I don't see the point in giving them a legal way to become deadbeats.
Also, would this agreement be irrevocable? What happens if I want to see my kid after 5 years? Do I have to pay 5 years' worth of child support all at once? Or can I see my kid if I just agree to start paying from now on? And if I regain parental rights, what if I want to rescind them again because I lost my job and can't afford child support anymore?
But if you let guys unilaterally decide to stop supporting a child without the mother's agreement, then that's just a disaster. In many if not most cases men will just use it as leverage to force the mother to abort the child or put it up for adoption. There's already enough deadbeat dads in this country - I don't see the point in giving them a legal way to become deadbeats.
Also, would this agreement be irrevocable? What happens if I want to see my kid after 5 years? Do I have to pay 5 years' worth of child support all at once? Or can I see my kid if I just agree to start paying from now on? And if I regain parental rights, what if I want to rescind them again because I lost my job and can't afford child support anymore?
Devolution
Member
That sounds a lot like your sex/pregnancy argument. It seems like you are cherry picking when responsibility for your consequences kick in. Why should a parent of a child be anymore responsible than the parent of a fetus, assuming the fetus and child have the exact same rights?
The fuck are you talking about? They chose to be a parent. This isn't a gotcha moment for you. I'm seriously wondering about your ability to parse logic.
IHaveCandy
Banned
You're saying that responsibility kicks in then, but not earlier. This is basically reverting back to the earlier sex/pregnancy argument, but you are landing on the other side of the argument now. You can choose to have a kid without choosing to be responsible for the kid. The two aren't the same actions.The fuck are you talking about? They chose to be a parent. This isn't a gotcha moment for you. I'm seriously wondering about your ability to parse logic.
Devolution
Member
You're saying that responsibility kicks in then, but not earlier. This is basically reverting back to the earlier sex/pregnancy argument, but you are landing on the other side of the argument now. You can choose to have a kid without choosing to be responsible for the kid. The two aren't the same actions.
Someone can have sex and choose not to be pregnant via an abortion.
Someone can have the baby and either be a parent or put it up for adoption.
Do you understand this?
IHaveCandy
Banned
So you believe a parent who is perfectly capable of supporting their baby financially should be allowed to put their kid up for adoption, with no legal consequences happening to them, just because they don't want to take care of it? You you are saying yes to this then my argument is defeated.Someone can have sex and choose not to be pregnant via an abortion.
Someone can have the baby and either be a parent or put it up for adoption.
Do you understand this?
Devolution
Member
So you believe a parent who is perfectly capable of supporting their baby financially should be allowed to put their kid up for adoption, with no legal consequences happening to them, just because they don't want to take care of it? You you are saying yes to this then my argument is defeated.
Anyone can place their kid up for adoption. That's how it works. What argument? What are you going on about? I'm merely saying facts at this point.
I'm arguing that we already grant rights to human bodies that are no longer sentient. Ultimately I think in order to be consistent, people need to either ban abortions or dead bodies shouldn't have any rights of preservation. I guess you could say my argument isn't useful if you are comfortable with allowing a dead bodies to lose their right of preservation.
And again, your initial part of that post is a contradiction. It is in fact allowing the result being unwanted to let you determine the argument is bad. It's having the ends dictate the means.
So nothing at all is a bad argument to you? And you think a person having a say in what happens to their body after death is an argument against abortion? You also seem to have missed that I am against people having control over their bodies to an absolute degree. But hey, I guess we're done here. Can't discuss something when someone doesn't even think there is such a thing as a flawed argument.
IHaveCandy
Banned
We aren't arguing about how things are. We are discussing how things should be. And I do not think a mother is allowed to put their kid up for adoption if they are perfectly capable of caring for it. Are you telling me there are no stipulations for putting your kid up for adoption? If so, do you agree with that?Anyone can place their kid up for adoption. That's how it works. What argument? What are you going on about? I'm merely saying facts at this point.
IHaveCandy
Banned
What are you talking about? I never said there isn't such a thing as a bad argument.So nothing at all is a bad argument to you? And you think a person having a say in what happens to their body after death is an argument against abortion? You also seem to have missed that I am against people having control over their bodies to an absolute degree. But hey, I guess we're done here. Can't discuss something when someone doesn't even think there is such a thing as a flawed argument.
I said a good argument leading to an unwanted result doesn't make it a bad argument.
You said an argument with an unwanted result is a bad argument.
I'd say something is a bad argument if it isn't consistent with itself. I don't have to agree with the argument, but that doesn't make the argument bad. I just don't think you should construct a philosophical argument with the idea that you are targeting a result. For example: I would argue that murder is wrong by saying that we each are entitled to our own lives and such. Since murder takes away our life, it is wrong.
I would not say since I don't want people killing other people, murder is wrong.
I think you overestimate the number of abortions people will get.
Even in the Netherlands, where you can legally get abortions, its not like people do it 24/7.
I know some people personally that decided to keep their baby, which was unplanned.
Let people themselves decide, most of them are perfectly capable.
(Sidenote: its kind of funny in the USA a lot of people are against abortions, meanwhile they hate the government to give them rules and restrictions)
Even in the Netherlands, where you can legally get abortions, its not like people do it 24/7.
I know some people personally that decided to keep their baby, which was unplanned.
Let people themselves decide, most of them are perfectly capable.
(Sidenote: its kind of funny in the USA a lot of people are against abortions, meanwhile they hate the government to give them rules and restrictions)
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I have heard some people argue that women should be the the sole parent of the child from the get-go, as her part in the process of creating it far outweighs the man. He only supplies some genetic material, while she nurtures, grows, and cares for it up until it is born (and for some time afterwards, as her breast milk contains essential nutrients and immune system building components).
As the contribution of the man is next to nothing, one might as well consider it non-existent, and give custody of all children to the mother birthing them. Then, if the mother agrees to it, a father can if he wishes attempt to become the father of the child - through a straight-forward paternity affirmation process.
As the contribution of the man is next to nothing, one might as well consider it non-existent, and give custody of all children to the mother birthing them. Then, if the mother agrees to it, a father can if he wishes attempt to become the father of the child - through a straight-forward paternity affirmation process.
Well we are human the moment we have our own complete set of DNA.
Twins are boned.
I'm sorry but that is all on the woman, if religious or moral views get in the way of abortion that is is not on the man and he shouldn't be held responsible for it.
The point I'm making is that the choice to have a "paper abortion" is not equal to the choice to have an actual abortion.
Putting aside concern for children, many people advocate "paper abortions" as a means of evening the score between men and women. But it can't even the score, because by its nature a "paper abortion" would be easier, less complicated and have fewer moral or religious implications than an actual abortion.
So when proponents advocate in favor of "paper abortions," they're not advocating for equality, instead they're seeking something much better than what is available to women. They're asking for a benefit that women don't have and likely can't ever have (all the while ignoring the effects on a third person).
If men truly wanted a choice equal to the one currently available to women, then "paper abortion" should be (1) difficult to obtain, depending on where you live; (2) require the father to listen to the heartbeat of his child (in addition to other restrictions); (3) require the father to walk a gauntlet of protestor's calling him a "murderer" and (4) for some portion of men, they should be told that signing the document will result in the death of another person.
The point I'm making is that the choice to have a "paper abortion" is not equal to the choice to have an actual abortion.
Putting aside concern for children, many people advocate "paper abortions" as a means of evening the score between men and women. But it can't even the score, because by its nature a "paper abortion" would be easier, less complicated and have fewer moral or religious implications than an actual abortion.
So when proponents advocate in favor of "paper abortions," they're not advocating for equality, instead they're seeking something much better than what is available to women. They're asking for a benefit that women don't have and likely can't ever have (all the while ignoring the effects on a third person).
If men truly wanted a choice equal to the one currently available to women, then "paper abortion" should be (1) difficult to obtain, depending on where you live; (2) require the father to listen to the heartbeat of his child (in addition to other restrictions); (3) require the father to walk a gauntlet of protestor's calling him a "murderer" and (4) for some portion of men, they should be told that signing the document will result in the death of another person.
All that sounds like to me ie that women should have their abortion rights protected further. In parts of the world where all of that shit doesn't happen it's hard not to support it out of principle. I still find it unusual that you are claiming the abortion is now the harder thing for a woman to do than raise the child.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.