Abortion...

[Alistar7]

no, live with the decision, if I have sex and get pregnant, I will have to bear this child.

they at least would get a better deal than a man today.

If a man has sex and gets the woman pregant and he wants, well, that's not important what he wants, there is nothing to protect his interests, so after he finds out what she wants to do, if she hasnt changed her mind, then he will now what decision "he" made and will have to live with..

 

[Alistar7]

you're just bitter and in denial over the loss of your baby Moon, my thoughts and prayers go out to you and yours.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Then make women live with the fate of their decisons......
--------------------------
But of course, Alistar. Any woman who chooses to have an abortion will have to live with the fate of their decisions.

and the father who wanted that child has to live by her decision to kill his child, that sounds fair, as long as both sides get an equal chanceto live with their own decision once the pregnancy is fact, not a possibility.

 

[Alistar7]

when a woman can reproduce without the help of a man, then she can have the final say....

 

[Moonbeam]

Not to worry, Allistar, every 28 days or so there is a New Moon.

The man who is fool enough to impregnate a woman who doesn't want a child has nothing to complain about. Until modern science can remove the fetus from the woman and give it the father to bring to term and raise, the issue of moot.

 

[Corn]

Because of the accidental evolution of sexual reproduction divided between two sexes, we can't have the half that donates sperm deciding the 9 month or 18 year prison sentence like commitment of others if they are unwilling and see it as such.

Well then I take it we'll be witness to your unending support for reversing the slavery of every man who doesn't want a kid yet has to pay for it. Right? We can't have the half that have the sole decision in whether or not an unborn child will see the light of day deciding the 18 year prison sentence like commitment of others if they are unwilling and see it as such.

I see where your morality comes from Moonie, you see parenting as slavery. It makes perfect sense that you would see it that way.......

Every one of your cells could be cloned into another Corn but you pay them no mind. You don't imagine in that direction, but you attach meaning to the fertilized egg because of it's potential

"could be"? I "could be" god, tomorrow the color of the sky "could be" green, your argument "could be" valid.....all of these being highly unlikely of course.

Yes, my fingernails "could be" cloned, as much as my sperm "could be" a human. Unfortunately, neither of these items themselves "are" developing humans. A fetus is not a fingernail. A fertilized egg is not a "potential" person, it is a developing human. An unferilized egg is a "potential" person.

When did you become a Nanny of the state?

You'll have to provide some evidence that just because I believe abortion to be murder that I would impose my opinion onto the rest of the world. Instead I'm quite comfortable with simply stating my opinion that murder for convenience is wrong while watching the self-described enlightened revel in their barbarism.

 

[Corn]

The woman who is fool enough to allow herself to be impregnated when she doesn't want a child has nothing to complain about.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not to worry, Allistar, every 28 days or so there is a New Moon.

The man who is fool enough to impregnate a woman who doesn't want a child has nothing to complain about. Until modern science can remove the fetus from the woman and give it the father to bring to term and raise, the issue of moot.

Moon we have had one of our own female members post here on this, she herself said, your feelings change once you know for certain you are in fact pregnant. You assume that every pregnancy is planned, or that every act of intercourse will wind up in pregnancy or is the only reason for the action. You can have sex without getting pregnant, and without planning on trying. The opposite can happen as well.

Until a woman can have a child without the assistance of a man, whether through physical acts or fluid donation, a man has as much right in determining his decision to be a father or not once the pregnancy is known. If he is not givne this chance, why is the mother? Why is the father held accountable either way when the decision is not his?

 

[Alistar7]

Man and woman get married. Man has never changed his belief abortion is morally wrong and would never choose this option in any instance. Woman is pro-choice, but has always told husband how much she has always wanted children, a family. Man and woman have sex, he impregnates her (notice who is the responsibile acting party) , she decides she is to young to start her family right now and aborts. He does nothing as the law allows.

Man and woman get married. Both agree they do not want any children. Every precaution is taken to limit the likelyhood this will happen, multiple birth controls are used and fail. Woman gets impregnated by Man's super sperm and decides to keep baby. Father says I never wanted a child, state says, she did, pay for it, Dad.

Sounds like men have equal rights, no wonder they are held to whatever the woman decides or changes her mind once she knows for sure....

 

[Moonbeam]

You'll have to provide some evidence that just because I believe abortion to be murder that I would impose my opinion onto the rest of the world. Instead I'm quite comfortable with simply stating my opinion that murder for convenience is wrong while watching the self-described enlightened revel in their barbarism.
--------------------------------
Hey that's great. Sorry if I mistyped you. No barbarism here. I'm opposed to me getting an abortion. I'm just politically opposed to turning barbarians into baby mills against their wishes since the supreme righteousness of my personal morality is for me personally. My ego is too small to think it applies to a different sex that pays a bodily price caring essentially a parasite, no? Should we carry tape worms to term too. or take a pill. All you are doing is using your imagination to say that one lump of carbon has the right to grow in another lump of carbon because you attach some fantastical notion to that lump, developing lump rather than potential lump. The difference is all in your head. You are telling a conscious lump what to do with her conscious lump, a lump in which the imagination has been activated in her own individual way, according to the dictates of your conscious lump imagination. Your imagination is not superior to hers and you have no pony in the race. The lump under discussion does not have an active imagination resulting from a sense of self. You simply use a sense like empathy to impute one.



The woman who is fool enough to allow herself to be impregnated when she doesn't want a child has nothing to complain about.
-------------------------------
She doesn't have to complain, she can have the child or get an abortion.

 

[Alistar7]

It still takes the male sperm to fertilize the egg moon, your flowery talk doesn't change the facts of biology.

 

[Moonbeam]

Man and woman get married. Man has never changed his belief abortion is morally wrong and would never choose this option in any instance. Woman is pro-choice, but has always told husband how much she has always wanted children, a family. Man and woman have sex, he impregnates her (notice who is the responsibile acting party) , she decides she is to young to start her family right now and aborts. He does nothing as the law allows.

Man and woman get married. Both agree they do not want any children. Every precaution is taken to limit the likelyhood this will happen, multiple birth controls are used and fail. Woman gets impregnated by Man's super sperm and decides to keep baby. Father says I never wanted a child, state says, she did, pay for it, Dad.

Sounds like men have equal rights, no wonder they are held to whatever the woman decides or changes her mind once she knows for sure....
--------------------------
You are confusing three different streams of rights, Alistar. In the first case it's a woman?s rights issue, her body her decision.

In the second case it's the rights of an independent individual, a child to have parental support binding on both mother and child. Doesn't mean it will happen though. Will certainly be more likely, though, if the child is wanted.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What gives a fertilized egg special significance is the human mind, the imagination. The facts say otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean your INTERPRETATION of the facts, a.k.a. your opinion, which clearly is not shared by all scientists.
---------------------------------------------
mugs, surely you can see that it is yours statement that is more the opinion. I supported mine with data and fact, a context. All you did was blather. How is my statement not factual and what scientists? Otherwise I will be tempted to state the final word on the subject and announce to all the world that you are simply and flat out wrong.
--------------

Wow. That's rather presumptuous of you, isn't it? To say that you have the final word on the subject? And I did not "blather;" my only mistake was assuming that the the flaws in what you said were as obvious to you and everyone else as they were to me. Apparantly I have to spell it out.

The only "facts" you stated that were pertinent to your conclusion that the human imagination gives a fertilized egg special significance were:

There is actually nothing different or special about a fertilzed human or donkey egg. You couldn't tell the difference without science. And a fertilized egg is just hydrogen and nitrogen and sulfer and carbon and oxygen and a few other elements aranged in a particular way that took billions of years of random events to produce.

I must have missed the data you presented that showed what percentage of donkey eggs develop into human beings, and vice versa. Because if there is nothing different about them, then would either have an equal chance of developing into a donkey or a human? Suppose you transplanted the human egg into a donkey - surely then it would develop into a donkey, right?

Fact: There IS an intrinsic difference between a fertilized human egg and a fertilized donkey egg. The fertilized human egg is at the earliest stages of human development; the donkey egg is not.

You say you can't tell the difference without science. Is this whole discussion of the point where life begins not integrally related to science?

So yes, I believe that it is your opinion that a fertilized human egg is no different from a donkey egg or a fingernail clipping, but I know that opinion is not shared by everyone. I'll thank you to not resort to personal attacks ("All you did was blather") in the future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Alistar, The sperm of no physical cost to the father. The mother pays in blood sweat and tears. There is no parallel of investment in the development of the fetus between men and women and thus no parallel rights. It's a woman's choice. She is the oven. The loaf is the responsibility and creation of the baker, not the yeast manufacturer. It's not just pretty words, it's the way it is.

 

[Alistar7]

mugsywwiii

welcome, and good luck with moon.


That's true moon, in that 1st case it is the womans decision, and that is whats wrong with abortion and child support laws, men have no say, no right, but must accept full responsibility.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Alistar, The sperm of no physical cost to the father. The mother pays in blood sweat and tears. There is no parallel of investment in the development of the fetus between men and women and thus no parallel rights. It's a woman's choice. She is the oven. The loaf is the responsibility and creation of the baker, not the yeast manufacturer. It's not just pretty words, it's the way it is.

exactly, the man is essential, it cannot be done without his contribution, one way or another.

 

[Alistar7]

i understand your position moon, you agree men should have no right to decide if their children should live or die, but they should be held accountable if someone else decides otherwise, when you use logic like that who can argue with such fairness.

 

[Alistar7]

can we stay away from the oven, bread, loaf analogies in this issue, I don't need to think about yeast and such.....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HJD1
At the instant the human female egg is fertilized it, the egg, has yet to become an entity nor has it achieved viability. At what point does definite individuality occur? I suggest when it becomes viable it becomes an entity (in this case a human being). Before this time it is still dependent on the woman for its existence. It is not viable and is not an entity and therefore, not human. It is but a part of a human all be it with potential to become human.
So. Until the point in gestation when viability occurs abortion is not anything more than the removal of a potential human from its enabling source. After the aforementioned point in time abortion is the termination of human life.
The semantics of all this is just that, semantics. We should not create laws that go beyond the semantics that I articulated above because to do so requires a religious definition that not all buy into. The individual makes the choice as to their own body until the legal point when human life is reached in conjunction with their moral and or religious beliefs. To change the law to encompass a period before viability invokes Church/State dogma that is unconstitutional. IMHO

I restate my thesis in order to have it challenged if it can be.
Using the words or reality where is your proof that what I said earlier and above is not accurate save the PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL right of belief.

 

[Alistar7]

works great until they create artificial wombs....


i am fine with that as long as both interested parties are given every right to their child equally.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mugs: Wow. That's rather presumptuous of you, isn't it? To say that you have the final word on the subject? And I did not "blather;" my only mistake was assuming that the the flaws in what you said were as obvious to you and everyone else as they were to me. Apparantly I have to spell it out.
___________
Hehe, your only mistake was a titanic one, mugs, and profoundly presumptive. It amounted to a unilateral declaration that I was wrong. That's why, although it should have been quite obvious to any rational mind that mine was the sound argument (read sarcasm here), I decided to unilaterally declare you to be wrong. I thought you should see how your presumption looks to others in a form you can digest, by reflection, no? Just trying to be instructive.
-------------------
Mugs: The only "facts" you stated that were pertinent to your conclusion that the human imagination gives a fertilized egg special significance were:
--------

The only facts I presented were, of course, iron clad as witnessed by your feeble rebuttal:
----------
I must have missed the data you presented that showed what percentage of donkey eggs develop into human beings, and vice versa. Because if there is nothing different about them, then would either have an equal chance of developing into a donkey or a human? Suppose you transplanted the human egg into a donkey - surely then it would develop into a donkey, right? (Phony argument. I said you can't tell the difference without scientific instruments given an example of each. I didn't say there was no difference or that development wouldn't provide one. I was referring to a visual inspection of each. No visible difference. The difference is imaginary without scientific amplification)

Fact: There IS an intrinsic difference between a fertilized human egg and a fertilized donkey egg. The fertilized human egg is at the earliest stages of human development; the donkey egg is not. (Intrinsic in your imagination and via scientific amplification, as I said)

You say you can't tell the difference without science. Is this whole discussion of the point where life begins not integrally related to science? (Science has no pony in this race. This is a purely philosophical, religious legal question in which human pragmatism has triumphed. We owe nothing to science except perhaps the ability to think coherently and dispassionately, logically and according to evidence.)

So yes, I believe that it is your opinion that a fertilized human egg is no different from a donkey egg or a fingernail clipping, but I know that opinion is not shared by everyone. I'll thank you to not resort to personal attacks ("All you did was blather") in the future. (No that is not my opinion. I know as well as the next person there's a difference. I also know that feelings about that difference are a product of the imagination, the story you tell yourself, your context, from which you view the matter.
---------------
-----------------
welcome, and good luck with moon.


That's true moon, in that 1st case it is the woman?s decision, and that is what?s wrong with abortion and child support laws, men have no say, no right, but must accept full responsibility.
-------
Alistar, he doesn't need luck, he needs a case. You state the case accurately, your problem is that you don't see it's exactly as it should be. Men have all the rights there are. Don't get a woman pregnant that doesn't want a kid or pay the price. Very simple. Sorry if you haven't had that good sense.
-------------------------------
The yeast thingi is to help you see parallels without your emotional baggage. You won't loose your mind if the loaf falls flat and has to be thrown out.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Hehe, your only mistake was a titanic one, mugs, and profoundly presumptive. It amounted to a unilateral declaration that I was wrong. That's why, although it should have been quite obvious to any rational mind that mine was the sound argument (read sarcasm here), I decided to unilaterally declare you to be wrong. I thought you should see how your presumption looks to others in a form you can digest, by reflection, no? Just trying to be instructive.

The only facts I presented were, of course, iron clad as witnessed by your feeble rebuttal:

Clearly they are not, or everyone would agree with you.

I must have missed the data you presented that showed what percentage of donkey eggs develop into human beings, and vice versa. Because if there is nothing different about them, then would either have an equal chance of developing into a donkey or a human? Suppose you transplanted the human egg into a donkey - surely then it would develop into a donkey, right? (Phony argument. I said you can't tell the difference without scientific instruments given an example of each. I didn't say there was no difference or that development wouldn't provide one. I was referring to a visual inspection of each. No visible difference. The difference is imaginary without scientific amplification)

Why does it matter if they look the same? You and I both know they are NOT the same. You even admit to that, but you don't accept that the difference matters. I will not be able to convince you otherwise.

Fact: There IS an intrinsic difference between a fertilized human egg and a fertilized donkey egg. The fertilized human egg is at the earliest stages of human development; the donkey egg is not. (Intrinsic in your imagination and via scientific amplification, as I said)

In my imagination and via scientific amplification are two very different things, are they not?

You say you can't tell the difference without science. Is this whole discussion of the point where life begins not integrally related to science? (Science has no pony in this race. This is a purely philosophical, religious legal question in which human pragmatism has triumphed. We owe nothing to science except perhaps the ability to think coherently and dispassionately, logically and according to evidence.)

Without science, we would know nothing about how human reproduction works. Everything that we have discussed regarding human development is science. Your statement that a human egg and a donkey egg are visually similar is science (unless you can see single cells with your naked eye). To say that science has no place in a philosophical debate about a scientific issue is absurd. Unless you want to go back to the days of Gallileo.

Alistar, he doesn't need luck, he needs a case.

Or perhaps I need an open-minded audience.

 

[Moonbeam]

Clearly they are not, or everyone would agree with you.
------------------------------
You have never heard of flat earthers?
-----------------
Why does it matter if they look the same?
-----------------------
It matters because it tells you that the difference isn't something tangable, it's intellectual, imaginary, impalpable, abstract, a projection of your own mind on the otherwise invisible.
------------
In my imagination and via scientific amplification are two very different things, are they not?
--------------------
Yes but without the science you wouldn't know which onw to do which on. That is the point.
--------------------
Without science, we would know nothing about how human reproduction works. Everything that we have discussed regarding human development is science. Your statement that a human egg and a donkey egg are visually similar is science (unless you can see single cells with your naked eye). To say that science has no place in a philosophical debate about a scientific issue is absurd. Unless you want to go back to the days of Gallileo.
-----------------
I didn't say it had no place, I mentioned its place. I merely said that it's not by science that we reach decissions about the meaning of life. Science is mute on such a point. It's ultimatley a value judgment, an act of imagination.
-----------------------
Or perhaps I need an open-minded audience.
--------------------
You have one. That's why I said you need a case.

 

[Alistar7]

Alistar, he doesn't need luck, he needs a case. You state the case accurately, your problem is that you don't see it's exactly as it should be. Men have all the rights there are. Don't get a woman pregnant that doesn't want a kid or pay the price. Very simple. Sorry if you haven't had that good sense.


no children of my own, certainly no situation like that in either event thankfully, I would be crushed if a woman I was dating told me she wanted children, got pregnant with mine, and then changed her mind and aborted it anyway.

Every parent deserves the same rights if they are to be held to the same responsibility period.


This is not the case, which is why your wife was able to abort moon Jr. against your wishes.

 

[Moonbeam]

You go right ahead and focus on the time period and completely ignore the reality of body commitment if your insecure ego demands it. It must be frightening to have so little intuitive skills as to fear an incapacity to know another person so little as to get caught in such a situation, or to fear tragedy so much as to be afraid to live. Worry about something real, like what sort of world you make for children. You can't change biology. Maybe you can change other realities of the world.