• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History: Aborted fetus recognized to have legal rights

Atheist 2020 said:
And this can be made in a science lab of a test tube baby. If this is called the first stages of life, and I decide to freeze the dipoloid zygote for a decade, then transplant it into a different mother a decade down the road. Is the baby a newborn or a 10 year old newborn? Even being frozen, the years go bye year after year. Do I add the years the baby was frozen, and the baby grows up as a human and the added ten years is counted all the way into retirement and death?
Click to expand...
Cryogenics removes temporality.
 
Angel said:
Cryogenics removes temporality.
Click to expand...

Don't engage with this poster. Just type in agent orange in the search bar of dp. You will thank me later.
 
prometeus said:
And a lot more, none of which exists at that early stage, so it is not paternity.
Click to expand...
The biology is the necessary and sufficient condition for paternity. Whatever else you have in mind is neither necessary nor sufficient.
 
I wish I could purchase a aborted fetus. I would keep it in a jar and take it out from under the bed from time to time. Maybe I can take it to work and keep it on my desk.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm confused here... I thought it was the woman who had committed statutory rape and that the male was a minor?
Click to expand...

The actual case that initiated the thread involved a 19 year old male and a 16 year old female.

Part way through the thread, I introduced a THEORETICAL counter situation that involved a 19 year old female and a 16 year old male. This was because, while a lot of the arguments appeared to make sense in one situation they became ludicrous in a "gender reversed" situation.

If you are going to talk about "parental responsibility", "child support", and "control over one's own body" then the position has to make sense REGARDLESS of the genders of the people involved. If they don't, then the position is "gender biased" (a term that can include 'helpful bias' as well as 'harmful bias') rather than "gender neutral".
 
Bucky said:
Let's be honest. You believe a women should have an abortion because the mother and the potential person would be better off if she had an abortion; actually let's not sugar coat it.
Click to expand...

That's rather a gross misstatement of "I believe that someone has the right to make their own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion." - isn't it?

Bucky said:
You believe the mother's life would be better off if she killed her fetus and the fetus wouldn't have a life worth living if that child become the ward of the state.
Click to expand...

No, that is what you want to think that they believe.

Bucky said:
Who do you think you are? 50 million lives have been taken away since roe v. wade. The total u.s population is 325.7 million. 50/325.7 = about 15% of the U.S population killed due to being a personal inconvenience. Now that's pathetic.

The fact is you have no proof, no proof at all that those 50 million lives would have grown up and had lives no worth living. Not one ounce of proof!
Click to expand...

And, would you be surprised to learn that the amount of proof that you have to the contrary is exactly the same?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The actual case that initiated the thread involved a 19 year old male and a 16 year old female.

Part way through the thread, I introduced a THEORETICAL counter situation that involved a 19 year old female and a 16 year old male. This was because, while a lot of the arguments appeared to make sense in one situation they became ludicrous in a "gender reversed" situation.

If you are going to talk about "parental responsibility", "child support", and "control over one's own body" then the position has to make sense REGARDLESS of the genders of the people involved. If they don't, then the position is "gender biased" (a term that can include 'helpful bias' as well as 'harmful bias') rather than "gender neutral".
Click to expand...

I don't think you can ever get to true "gender neutrality" in this argument for the simple fact that the human reproductive process places a far greater burden on the female than the male. Wouldn't you agree that allowances must necessarily be made on a case-by-case basis to account for this fundamental biological imbalance?
 
prometeus said:
No it is not as demonstrated by in vitro.
Click to expand...
In vitro demonstrates no such thing. In vitro it is still a sperm and egg forming a zygote with the DNA of the sperm and egg donors, and so biology is still the necessary and sufficient conditions of paternity and maternity.
 
Cordelier said:
I don't think you can ever get to true "gender neutrality" in this argument for the simple fact that the human reproductive process places a far greater burden on the female than the male. Wouldn't you agree that allowances must necessarily be made on a case-by-case basis to account for this fundamental biological imbalance?
Click to expand...

That IS the rational way to approach the subject.

However, those who deem that the male has an equal right to determine whether or not the woman has an abortion (and in the case of a tie, the man gets to cast a second vote), don't look at it that way.

Of course, a lot of those people also believe that if the vote is 2 - 0 in favour of the woman having an abortion then the woman should not be allowed to have an abortion and should be subject to criminal sanctions if she does (or even attempts to) have one. In short, their position is


"It is always the man who gets to decide on whether the woman can have an abortion, unless, of course, the man decides that the woman should have an abortion in which case neither one of them has the right to make that decision and they will do what I tell them to do (even though I haven't the foggiest idea who they are or what their situation is).".
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That IS the rational way to approach the subject.

However, those who deem that the male has an equal right to determine whether or not the woman has an abortion (and in the case of a tie, the man gets to cast a second vote), don't look at it that way.

Of course, a lot of those people also believe that if the vote is 2 - 0 in favour of the woman having an abortion then the woman should not be allowed to have an abortion and should be subject to criminal sanctions if she does (or even attempts to) have one. In short, their position is


"It is always the man who gets to decide on whether the woman can have an abortion, unless, of course, the man decides that the woman should have an abortion in which case neither one of them has the right to make that decision and they will do what I tell them to do (even though I haven't the foggiest idea who they are or what their situation is).".
​
Click to expand...

I've got sympathy for guys in that kind of a situation who believe in the sanctity of life.... because those are the same values I hold myself, through fortunately I haven't had to face the actual situation of an unplanned pregnancy myself (though I won't say there hasn't been a scare or two along the way).

That being said, I've got even more sympathy or the woman placed into that position. It's got to be like a haystack falling on your head. And then on top of that, having to make the decision with all that it entails. I doubt if there are too many women out there of sound mind who take it lightly, whatever they decide.

Speaking as a guy, all I can say is that I'd try to be there for her and to support her in whatever it is she decided.... but I never thought the decision was mine to make. My only real choice was in the partner herself. I figure if you make the right one there, all the rest will fall into place.
 
Angel said:
In vitro demonstrates no such thing.
Click to expand...
Of course it does and you either do not understand why or are not honest enough to admit it. Who is the parent and what obligation come with it?

In vitro it is still a sperm and egg forming a zygote with the DNA of the sperm and egg donors, and so biology is still the necessary
Click to expand...
Yes and that is all there is but no paternity.
 
prometeus said:
Of course it does and you either do not understand why or are not honest enough to admit it. Who is the parent and what obligation come with it?

Yes and that is all there is but no paternity.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't, and don't start with the personal remarks. If you don't understand the concept of paternity, don't engage any further in dialogue with me.
 
Angel said:
Of course it doesn't, and don't start with the personal remarks.
Click to expand...
Just reality and only the facts.

If you don't understand the concept of paternity
Click to expand...
Clearly it is you who lacks since you can not answer the questions.

don't engage any further in dialogue with me.
Click to expand...
It is an open forum my dear, anyone can reply to any post and you do not get to dictate anything to anyone. If you can not handle being shown to lack basic knowledge maybe you should undertake less intellectually challenging endeavors.
 
Cordelier said:
I've got sympathy for guys in that kind of a situation who believe in the sanctity of life.... because those are the same values I hold myself, through fortunately I haven't had to face the actual situation of an unplanned pregnancy myself (though I won't say there hasn't been a scare or two along the way).
Click to expand...

Facetiously I'd say "Well, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.", but I do understand the dilemma.

Cordelier said:
That being said, I've got even more sympathy or the woman placed into that position. It's got to be like a haystack falling on your head. And then on top of that, having to make the decision with all that it entails. I doubt if there are too many women out there of sound mind who take it lightly, whatever they decide.
Click to expand...

As I recall it, the reputable research shows that the decision to have an abortion is NOT "taken lightly" in the vast majority of cases.

Cordelier said:
Speaking as a guy, all I can say is that I'd try to be there for her and to support her in whatever it is she decided.... but I never thought the decision was mine to make. My only real choice was in the partner herself. I figure if you make the right one there, all the rest will fall into place.
Click to expand...

Not only is that a truism (not used in any derogatory sense whatsoever) but it is an outcome sincerely to be hoped for.
 
prometeus said:
Just reality and only the facts.

Clearly it is you who lacks since you can not answer the questions.

It is an open forum my dear, anyone can reply to any post and you do not get to dictate anything to anyone. If you can not handle being shown to lack basic knowledge maybe you should undertake less intellectually challenging endeavors.
Click to expand...
You do not understand the concept of paternity. Please stop pestering me with your politically motivated lack of understanding.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Facetiously I'd say "Well, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.", but I do understand the dilemma.



As I recall it, the reputable research shows that the decision to have an abortion is NOT "taken lightly" in the vast majority of cases.



Not only is that a truism (not used in any derogatory sense whatsoever) but it is an outcome sincerely to be hoped for.
Click to expand...

Dang it, Curmudgeon.... this place is going to start getting pretty boring if we keep agreeing like this. Try harder! *L*
 
year2late said:
Men have a choice. It comes before conception.

They can minimize their exposure to unplanned pregnancy by using a condom that they brought and personally dispose of it (just to be sure)...vasectomy depending on their reproductive desires, abstain, have sex with post menopausal women........

If I were a guy.....I would wear a condom even if the woman said she had a tubal ligation or hysterectomy.

If I were a guy ....I would be fighting like hell for better male birth control......
Click to expand...

My argument is about post conception choice/rights...
 
Angel said:
Doesn't the law say whether he must support the baby, whatever he says?
Click to expand...

That is why I said that he should... not that he does.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
And I pointed out the absurdity of the claim that it's inequitable for men NOT to have the right to compel women to carry a fetus to term simply because they cannot compel the woman NOT to carry a fetus to term.
Click to expand...

Great. I don't think he should have that right either.
 
Bodhisattva said:
My argument is about post conception choice/rights...
Click to expand...

Before birth....the woman takes 100 percent of the risk - whether it is gestation and birth or abortion.

I know it sucks, so better be careful before hand. Never leave birth control only up to her. The individual (s) who are not wanting to be a parent should use contraception each and every time.

If I was a guy, I would bring my own condoms to the "party" and dispose of used ones myself.

You want equal when inherently it is not. So "equality" is before conception and after birth. There is no equal footing during any stage of pregnancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom