Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Moot since it isn't a sentient being and is therefore incapable of being murdered.
-
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.
What does GAF think of paper abortions?
- Thread starter Bleepey
- Start date
- Status
Moot since it isn't a sentient being and is therefore incapable of being murdered.
zero shift
Banned
The misogynistic elements of this thread are a bit startling to me for a website with such a progressive base.
Devolution
Member
You must have missed a lot of threads.
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.
zero shift
Banned
Nah I just forget how sites like these get some times.
When I was a lurker I recall reading a thread were someone posted child support statistics from the census (or something like that it was government) showing that more often than not women tend to get the bad end of the deal. Most of the posters started to freak the fuck out on him.
I also recall reading a thread about "Why do poor people have so many kids?" and it turned into "black women taking all my moneys with welfare baby checks!"
CrunchyFrog
Member
Once again, most surgeries don't involve the purposeful ending of another's life in the process. The analogy fails here. And secondly, I've already addressed this. Women and men have freedom and autonomy when they choose to have sex. One is no more a slave to pregnancy resulting from sex than one is a slave to bruising from choosing to jump off a 2-story roof and breaking one's ankle. Your freedom and autonomy also fall short when the exercising of certain aspects of those definitively and totally usurps the rights of another human being. That's kind of the basis for common law. But again, I recognize you're arguing from the fundamental idea that a fetus is not a legal human being, so we're just not going to agree here.
You accuse me of using ill-defined terms then throw out the grand daddy of all ill-defined terms as "cognizance." Once again, you refuse to play by your own rules. If we're going to go any further, you're DEFINITELY going to have to clarify exactly what you mean when you refer to "cognizance," as that definition has profound implications on just about every facet of human rights, not just abortion.
Once again, define sentience.
IHaveCandy
Banned
The argument "If she gets 100% say whether she has the baby or not, I should have 100% say whether I contribute" does make sense. I don't think it would be feasible to maintain with the way our society works though.
Devolution
Member
An embryo isn't a person. And even if it was a woman isn't consenting to be an organ slave when she fucks a man. What backwards thinking.
The amount of weeks a woman has to get an abortion already factors in pro-life bullshit.
I agree with that in the abstract, but I do think it's important that the child as the innocent party should not be the one to suffer.
I also have less sympathy for the man in this situation. The "YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU HAD SEX" argument is generally BS. However in a situation where the guy is about to bang a girl with a crucifix hanging above her bed, it's not unreasonable that he ought to take a minute and think through the likely outcomes.
NinjaBoiX
Member
How is this different to a normal abortion?
I've never heard of this "paper" abortion.
Disagree with it as a practicality of society. I absolutely think that a man has a right to voice his opinion about an unwanted pregnancy should one arise. But since the women are the ones carrying to term it is their decision.
However, in theory I wouldn't be opposed to a father or mother removing themselves from the childhood rearing process if the child will be well cared for otherwise.
However, in theory I wouldn't be opposed to a father or mother removing themselves from the childhood rearing process if the child will be well cared for otherwise.
Abortion: up to the woman. Her body. She needs to decide if she wants to go through with the burden
Financial responsibility: Man can opt out. While a man can't make a woman do anything, the woman most certainly shouldn't make the man take financial responsibility. Similar to an abortion, this would only be allowed early in the pregnancy, where the woman can decide to have an abortion. If the man doesn't opt out, then by default he is opted in. Technically, the woman can opt out by giving the baby up to adoption or having that abortion
Fair for all parties involved.
Financial responsibility: Man can opt out. While a man can't make a woman do anything, the woman most certainly shouldn't make the man take financial responsibility. Similar to an abortion, this would only be allowed early in the pregnancy, where the woman can decide to have an abortion. If the man doesn't opt out, then by default he is opted in. Technically, the woman can opt out by giving the baby up to adoption or having that abortion
Fair for all parties involved.
CrunchyFrog
Member
lol it is. weird how opinions work. The point is I don't agree with your definition of legal/philosophical personhood, just as Congress didn't agree with the slave-exempting definition of personhood, just as the women's suffrage movement didn't agree with the government's gender-based definition of personhood. The idea of personhood as a legal and philosophical concept has remained fluid and subject to the opinions of various peoples for ages. How is your opinion on the definition of personhood any better than mine or anyone else's for that matter?
For one who claims to want sex education you don't seem to have a very clear understanding of reproductive biology. Sex and pregnancy are a package deal, whether one likes it or not. Consent to one is consent to the real possibility of the other, at least at this point in reproductive medicine. And again, you accuse me of using emotive terms when you yourself stick to the Pulitzer Prize winning "organ slave." Accusing me of an agenda is pot-meet-kettle of the highest order.
Your continued belligerence and logical loops seem to indicate you have no desire for any kind of real discussion. I'm just gonna go ahead and bow out here.
Oh I agree for sure, I am not trying to be unreasonable or anything, because, I do think both parties should be responsible. If a man knows ahead of time that the person is clearly against abortion then that is on him, but, at the same time if a man gets a woman pregnant without knowing (one night stand or something to that effect) I don't think the man can be entirely blamed in that case either, both parties involved chose to have sex and the man shouldn't be punished for the woman's feelings toward abortion.
What is a person? When does a group of cells become a person?
Devolution
Member
Actually pregnancy is so random and rare we've had societies that didn't think sex had anything to do with the process. We've even had cultures assume that a woman's uterus was like a gas tank that needed to be filled repeatedly until she could conceive.
All you can give me for the reasons a fetus is special in utilizing someone's organs without their consent, which is an organ slave, sorry, is "because sex."
You posit sex as nothing more than a procreative method that people should be punished for if and when it happens and want to pretend your views are more moralistic and enlightened. They're not. They're archaic and sad. Sex is a sociological and psychological bonding tool and has been for centuries. It's more than just "oh you got pregnant time to suffer."
Also it's not a fucking opinion that embryos lack the proper organs for cognitive abilities.
Wiktor
Member
There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy these days then if it happens people have only themselves to blame.
I like it how it is in my country - abortion is allowed only if it endangers life of the mother or is a result of rape. Plus you can give up the baby by leaving it in a window anonymously, no questions asked.
I like it how it is in my country - abortion is allowed only if it endangers life of the mother or is a result of rape. Plus you can give up the baby by leaving it in a window anonymously, no questions asked.
When the squiggly fishy thing meets the big round thing.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well we are human the moment we have our own complete set of DNA.
Devolution
Member
Better investigate any woman who doesn't have a full blown pregnancy and live birth after that happens.
What do you mean by we? Is a dna sequence a person? What possesses the set of DNA?
Devolution
Member
Stop cutting your nails and throwing them in the trash jerk.
michaelius
Banned
Sounds great... for fathers who don't want to pay aliments.
IHaveCandy
Banned
None of that really matters to the real issue at hand. If he views a fetus as a human that is entitled to the same rights as us, then he would be against abortion. To him it would be no different with how you'd feel about a mother dumping her kid off somewhere and left to die because she feels she is being tied down by her child. All other arguments are frivolous outside of "does this fetus have the right to live" if yes, then you're going to have to live with all the consequences that brings. If no, then carry on.
Devolution
Member
A fetus is granted more rights than us by current law actually and embryos would be given the same from his pov.
Women should be committed to hospital and placed in full body traction after sex, lest their physical activity result in involuntary manslaugher.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well yes. A cluster of cells is still a human if it has its own complete set of DNA. That's what truly defines us, biologically. It may not resemble what we think of when we think of humans, but it is still human.
IHaveCandy
Banned
You're going to have to explain that one to me. I don't see how they have more rights when their privilege to live is governed by other people.
Devolution
Member
Really? I can use your organs without your permission in order to live?
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well that argument would make sense in cases of rape, I suppose. But it's hard to argue that when the sex was consentual.
Devolution
Member
Doesn't matter if sex was consensual.
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
IHaveCandy
Banned
Ofcourse it does. You just asked if you have permission to house another life in you. If you allow a man to inseminte you, that's exactly what you've given permission to by consequence.
Again, the issue hinges on what is considered the fetus' rights. Children are an incredible financial and time burden. The argument would be made by someone who believe children and fetus' have the same rights, why should a parent have to support their child? If the child can go off and make it on its own, good for the child. But why should I have to have the responsibility to care for it?
Devolution
Member
No I haven't.
Sex isn't just about procreation. In fact most of the time it isn't. We fuck because it feels good and then every once and a while a kid might happen because that's the genius part of the design in tying reproduction to something that feels nice.
I am a murderer.
It may be human, but is it a person? If it is, why isn't an isolated organ a person?
IHaveCandy
Banned
I agree. I just think it is important to still recognize it is human. I myself don't really know where to fall on the issue, but I don't like it when people try to twist the biology of an zygote.
IHaveCandy
Banned
"I gave you permission to shoot me in the head, not kill me. Shooting me in the head isn't just about killing me."
You can't dismiss consequences to the actions you permit so easily.
Devolution
Member
Or you can't narrowly define sex as only an act of procreation and every act of sex as a procreative one. It's bullshit, it's always been bullshit.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well I imagine the argument is that a human should determine what happens to its organs, not ohhers. After all, you have to give legal permission for your body to be used after death. It's not like we are legally allowed to take dead people's organs without permission. Why does a dead human have more rights than a human I'm the earliest stages of life?I am a murderer.
It may be human, but is it a person? If it is, why isn't an isolated organ a person?
You can't narrowly define shooting people in the head as an act of attempted murder and every act of shooting people in the head as successful murder.
You've missed the whole point. When is a piece of human tissue a person? You said a human is that which contains homo sapiens dna. But is that a person? Who is the entity that decides what happens to it's body when it is non sentient?
IHaveCandy
Banned
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?
Devolution
Member
I'm done. People are defining pregnancy as an inevitability when the reality is sex has a multitude of functions of which pregnancy is actually the rarest.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well I personally dont know the best answer for that. I think both answers lead you to bad roads. If you are fine with being logically/philosophically inconsistent, deeming only sentient creatures the right to live is the more effective answer for keeping things as they are. Some might say once you are a human in any form, you deserve the right to live. I don't think that is a bad argument really. It just leads to a lot of unwanted results.
The point I am making is that it doesn't matter what your purpose was when there are consequences. Anyways, my other post concedes this point for the sake of argument because I had a more important question for you.
If it leads to unwanted results, I would say it is a bad argument. Once you are human in any form you deserve the right to live. So, a liver, does that deserve the right to live? What about a dna sequence isolated in lab?
You really need a more rigorous definition of what is a person.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Well that's one way of thinking. But to me that always comes off as "I like the way that things are now or would like them to be this other way. Let me contrive my philosophical views in a way that will justify that result."
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about ends justifying the means?
What? Expecting a rigorous definition of a term before accepting statements about the term is contriving philosophically?
That just makes no sense.
IHaveCandy
Banned
No, saying an argument that leads to unwanted results is a bad argument is bad philosophy. A slave owner would think that a philosophy that argues for equality would lead to bad results, but he shouldn't allow that to make him say the argument is a bad one. Though he probably will.
I think when we try to make an argument for a philosophy, we shouldn't have it influenced by our personal interest. If our argument is solid and carries us to a result we don't like, that doesn't make the argument bad. This is why I asked you how you feel about ends justifying the means.
By bad results I mean absurdities, like a skin cell being a human. That is a bad result. I am not trying to make any philosophical argument at all, I am just trying to get a definition of a person that does not lead to absurdity.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Is it a bad argument because you don't like the result or because you don't like the argument?
?
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.
- Status